Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That the following Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business be made:

STANDING ORDER 39

Line 4, leave out 'the Department of Health and Social Security and'.

Line 9, after first 'of insert 'Education and'.

Line 9, after 'Employment' insert 'the Department of Health'.

Line 10, after 'Heritage' insert 'the Department of Social Security'.

Line 21, leave out 'Science' and insert 'Employment'.

Line 24, leave out 'Science' and insert 'Employment'.

TABLE OF FEES

Line 2, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£3,500'.

Line 3, leave out '£2,500' and insert £2,3,500'.

Line 23, leave out £2,2,500' and insert £2,3,500'.

Line 29, leave out '£1,250' and insert £2,1,750'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SAINT PAUL'S CHURCHYARD BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Saint Paul's Churchyard Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Defence Establishment

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of the defence establishment; and what was the equivalent figure immediately before the end of the cold war. [36559]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): As at 1 September this year, the strength of our regular armed forces was just under 228,400 and our civilian staff strength was about 130,000. On 1 April 1990, the figures were 305,711 regular service personnel and 172,273 civilian staff.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister recognise that there is now an estimated shortfall of about 10,000 personnel in Her Majesty's forces? Will not that present problems to Britain when meeting its national and international obligations in future? Will he recognise, too, that—by contrast—the British economy is suffering from severe unemployment? Does it not take a Government of some ineptitude to bring about such a contradiction?

Mr. Soames: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got the right end of the stick. It is true that there are manning shortfalls, principally in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry, because of poor recruiting and the inadequate retention of young soldiers. These shortfalls occur from time to time but are being dealt with by a vigorous recruitment campaign; and a special bounty has been introduced to improve retention in some areas.
The hon. Gentleman should realise that 32 per cent. of the land Army is engaged in commitments and operations—it is still an extremely exciting and thrilling career, one that is well worth people's joining. We must do more to ensure that people continue to be recruited to the service.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend use this opportunity to congratulate all involved in the defence costs study, which will save about £720 million on next year's defence budget? Will he also confirm that those savings will not be plundered by the Treasury but will be ploughed back into defence expenditure? Would he like to earmark some of it to improve on the establishment of our manpower, which is suffering from overstretch?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the defence costs study. As he rightly says, the results are extremely impressive: not just because the front line has been preserved but because substantial savings have been made.
I am also able to announce this afternoon that, in order to alleviate undermanning in the Army, we intend to retain for three years, from 1997, some 400 Gurkhas who would otherwise have been made redundant next year. They will form up to three infantry companies to substitute for British soldiers in infantry battalions, and a small number will also fill unmanned posts in units of the Royal Signals.
I believe that this imaginative scheme to use available military manpower in this way will be warmly welcomed by the Gurkhas, by the British Army, and above all by the British public, who rightly have huge regard and great affection for the Gurkhas.

Dr. Reid: I can assure the Minister that, despite the misleading headline in one newspaper this morning, as regards the defence establishment the Labour party has no intention of abolishing the courts martial system. As far as the figures are concerned, does he not have some explaining to do? The Ministry of Defence and the armed forces Minister have spent £500 million on redundancy payments, made 40,000-plus soldiers redundant, and now tell us that because we are short of soldiers we have to spend £100 million on recruiting them. Is that not an indication of mismanagement on the part of the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Soames: No, Madam, it is not. We are grateful for the clarification on the courts martial system. I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), its genesis, has been removed to the Whips Office. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—he is merely mischief making—that restructuring could not be achieved by natural wastage alone. A phased redundancy programme had to be used by each of the services. Obviously some recruitment continues during a redundancy programme, to ensure that there is a properly balanced age and rank structure to meet all the skill shortages in certain areas. The hon. Gentleman is making mischief in the way in which he phrased the question. There is a problem on recruiting. He knows that, as do we. We see it coming and are taking the most radical and sensible steps to ensure that we deal with it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend reflected on the fact that, at the height of the cold war, under the previous Labour Government, members of our armed forces faced decline in their conditions of service, whereas today they have realistic conditions of service that reflect the dangerous and challenging nature of their job. Does not that show that, on many other issues, one cannot trust Labour with defence?

Mr. Soames: The whole nation knows that one cannot possibly trust the Labour party on defence. My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, the services have never been better equipped or motivated than they are today. They are indeed at a lower level than they were, and quite rightly and inevitably so. They continue to be the most formidable armed forces of any nation in the world.

Financial Waste

Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he maintains a central record of financial waste in his Department. [36560]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My Department has identified significant improvements in the way in which we carry out our tasks, leading to large efficiency savings. We are determined to bear down on waste wherever it occurs.

Mr. Cummings: Given the Secretary of State's tough reputation for controlling public expenditure, can he explain why his Department appears unable to control

cost overruns at a time when more and more disclosures of incompetence and mismanagement are emerging virtually every week?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am tempted to ask: where's the beef? The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) was one of those who signed the Labour amendment last week calling for huge cuts in defence spending and the scrapping of Trident. He is living proof of the adage that was just stated by my hon. Friend the Minister: one cannot trust Labour on defence. My Department has been at the forefront in cutting out waste. The defence costs study, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, rightly called "Front Line First", will yield savings rising to £1,000 million over the next seven years, and that is over and above the efficiency savings that my Department has gone in for.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the financial waste that would accrue both to his Department and to the British aerospace industry if the Department were to purchase F16s rather than have the mid-life update of Tornados? Is he further aware that such a decision, if it were taken, would be seen as a major blow to British industry and to many of the constituents of his hon. Friends, and as such would be wholly unacceptable?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get into his question an important point on behalf of his constituents. It is true that we have to consider all options in considering the mid-life update of our Tornados. One of those options is the possible leasing of F16s from the Americans. That is an option that we are obliged to consider, and we would be properly criticised—possibly by my hon. Friend, but certainly by Opposition Members—if we did not consider all the options in deciding on the mid-life update of our Tornados.

Dr. David Clark: On the subject of waste, will the Minister confirm that the Department spent £24 million on buying 846 Reynolds Boughton light vehicles in preference to Land Rovers; that all those 846 vehicles have been found to be defective and unroadworthy and are in store in Army depots since they are unusable? How does he justify that as a sensible spending of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have already said that, if I or any of my fellow Ministers find waste in our Department, we are determined to come down on it like a ton of bricks. That remains the case. The hon. Gentleman is, as always, picking around tiny little things. He is determined to undermine as much as possible the savings that we are introducing. The efficiency scheme that we have introduced in the Ministry of Defence has over-achieved its target ever since 1988. It has produced savings of around £2.5 billion; that is a dramatic achievement of which we are proud.

Sir Peter Hordern: When my hon. Friend pursues his study in bearing down on costs, will he tell the House what is happening about the disposal of surplus MOD properties, which has been a subject of complaint for many years now by the Public Accounts Committee? Some progress has been made, but will my hon. Friend tell the House?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right that some progress has been made, but it is not yet sufficient and


that is why we are conducting a study to improve it and will be able dramatically to improve those sales of land during the next few years.

Bosnia

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest military situation in Bosnia. [36561]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The situation is generally much quieter following the ceasefire which came into effect on 12 October. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thanks to the Americans."] Sarajevo, for example, is a changed city with trams running, convoys arriving unhindered and prices falling.

Mr. Hain: In the new military situation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that British troops will still be available for protection and escort duties for British humanitarian and aid missions?

Mr. Portillo: For as long as the United Nations mission continues, British troops will continue to play their part. I should say that I am aware of a situation which has arisen in central Bosnia where mujaheddin appear to be operating with some sort of vendetta against British troops and, for the time being, the United Nations has withdrawn British troops from certain convoy escort duties in central Bosnia. That is on the recommendation of the United Nations for their own protection. But the general position remains that British troops will play their full part in United Nations operations.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Did not the firm, decisive and well co-ordinated action that took place during the recess, in which British troops played a conspicuous and distinguished part, prove that decisive action does in fact pay?

Mr. Portillo: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was bemused a moment ago to hear Opposition Members calling out that the improvement over the summer had been due to American troop operations, as though British troops had played no part. It is typical of the anti-patriotic ranting that we get from some Opposition Members.
The fact of the matter is that, as the House knows, British forces firing their artillery on Mount Igman played an extremely distinguished part, as did pilots from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, who committed themselves to missions with absolute courage and commendable success. Opposition Members would do well to recognise that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if NATO was to be unable to put the full force into the field to support the fragile peace, it would be damaging for the prospects for peace, and also to the credibility of NATO? Is the right hon. Gentleman apprehensive about the extent to which the United States is willing to put troops into a NATO force in order to assist the peace process in the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Portillo: No, I am not apprehensive about that. I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the importance of NATO deploying a full and effective force, but I am confident that the United States

will wish to play its part in that. I can also assure the House that the United Kingdom will wish to play its full part as well.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current situation in Bosnia was brought about largely because we deployed the right equipment and the right people at the right time? In particular, the top-cover flying of the Royal Air Force with the Tornado F3—especially at night—could not have been done by other aircraft crews available from NATO. The same applies to the important job of delivering the necessary laser bombs, performed by Harriers and Jaguars, and the enormous task undertaken by transport and other aircraft, including helicopters. All that meant that we were doing the right thing at the right time.

Mr. Portillo: This has been an enormously distinguished period in the history of all three services; but the history of distinguished service in Bosnia goes back further than just the past few weeks. What we have done, patiently, in feeding the hungry and saving human lives has been commendable, but when our forces were called on to adopt a more robust posture, they did not fail.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State yet in a position to advise the House on the command structure for the 50,000 to 60,000 troops that, according to NATO, will need to be deployed in Bosnia following a truce and peace accord? Will British troops serve under the United Nations or NATO, and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the agreement outlined yesterday in Washington will safeguard those troops?

Mr. Portillo: I believe that the operation must be undertaken by NATO, operating within the bounds of a United Nations Security Council resolution. I believe that NATO is the appropriate body. As has been proved recently, it is able to operate effectively in military terms. I also agree with the American position, which is that the command and control arrangements for NATO need to be absolutely straightforward and unambiguous.
That having been said, however, I should like nations outside NATO to participate. I am thinking of Russia, and of Muslim countries. I hope that we can find a way of including those countries in the operation without in any way confusing the command and control aspect.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent events in Bosnia show how successful air power can be if it is properly deployed? Will he contrast NATO's effectiveness in the past few months with the dithering of the UN over the past two years? Will he ensure that, in future, British interests in Europe are pursued through NATO rather than the United Nations?

Mr. Portillo: I certainly agree that NATO has been very effective, but I do not join my hon. Friend in his attack on the UN. I think that the UN found itself in a difficult position. Many of the problems that it faced were not its fault, but were caused by the inadequate support and resources voted to it by member states. I do, however, join my hon. Friend in again paying tribute to the way in which our troops have performed in the NATO operation.

National Parks

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has concerning the extent of military activity in national parks. [36562]

Mr. Soames: My Department has no new proposals that will alter the current extent of military activity in national parks, which continue to provide essential facilities for our armed forces.

Ms Quin: Will the Minister support a full public inquiry in relation to the proposed Ministry of Defence development in Northumberland national park—an area that is already being subjected to intensive military activity? Does he realise that, as well as the environmental concerns expressed by the Ramblers Association and others, concern is felt in the urban area of Tyneside about the number of military convoys and the inadequacy of roads to accommodate them?

Mr. Soames: I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for many people in that part of the world. There is massive support for the developments at Otterburn among all local people; the Army continues to be an important part of their lives. We hope very much that a sensible decision will he made early in 1996, and I hope that a planning inquiry will not be necessary.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the defence land agents and land command at Wilton on the sensitive way in which they have improved the management of the defence estate, and the use of the national parks and other countryside sites? Does he agree that the strange coalition who oppose the Army's sensible and sensitive development of the Otterburn ranges are anti-Army, anti-local people, anti-jobs and anti-countryside?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. That coalition is also anti-defence and I am extremely grateful to him for his tremendous support for the services in his part of the world. The Ministry of Defence gives the highest possible priority to conservation and maintains close liaison with national parks officials at both national and local level. The MOD has an unparalleled and unrivalled reputation for its conservation programme and it does not need lessons from anyone in that regard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

European Security

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to have discussions with his colleagues on the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union about the future of European security. [36563]

Mr. Portillo: The members of the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union will meet in Madrid on 13 and 14 November.

Mr. Thompson: When he meets his colleagues on the Council of Ministers, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to seek the support particularly of those in the associate partners organisations, to persuade our French colleague on the council to abandon all nuclear testing in the Pacific?

Mr. Portillo: No, I will not do that. It is extremely important that the House should understand that, if a nuclear deterrent is to be credible, people must know that it works: the country that owns the deterrent needs to know that and others need to know it too. In the United Kingdom, we are able to have that confidence about our

weapon system without undertaking tests, but it is not for us to lecture the French on whether they can have that confidence without testing.
I remind Opposition Members—I remind those many unilateralists among the Opposition—that we have secured a long period of peace thanks to the operation of the nuclear deterrent, which has been paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, of France and of the United Kingdom, and that those countries have borne responsibilities on behalf of the rest of the world.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Union's ambition to absorb the Western European Union defence organisation is deeply resented by those connected with the WEU and by many people outside, particularly in view of next year's intergovernmental conference? Is he also aware that the efforts made by his diplomats and officials in that sphere to achieve a sensible, middle-of-the-road approach are much to be welcomed and are much supported by many people connected with WEU? In those circumstances, will he give every encouragement that he can achieve a worthwhile bridge between WEU and the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. I understand why there should be resentment among members of WEU at the idea that it would be absorbed into the European Union. The two are not susceptible to being merged. After all, the European Union includes a number of countries that are neutrals and it would be absurd to erect a new barrier to entrance to the European Union—a defence qualification that those countries would have to cross. My hon. Friend is right to say, therefore, that we want to build a bridge between the European Union and the WEU and to ensure that, as European nations take on more responsibilities for their defence, the arrangements they make are compatible with NATO and not in competition with it.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members disagree both with the concept of the single European army and with majority voting by the Council of Ministers on defence policy? Will he therefore assure the House that his discussions with his European counterparts are both sensible and constructive and are not coloured by an obvious and damaging anti-European bias? Talking about trust, how on earth can we trust a party and a Secretary of State for Defence who, over the past two weeks, have played party politics of a most blatant sort with our nation's defences?

Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; after hearing his question, that welcome is really heartfelt and sincere.
The hon. Gentleman rises to denounce his own party, because Pauline Green, leader of the socialists in Europe and a Labour Member of the European Parliament, tabled a motion calling for the abolition of the veto in the European Union virtually everywhere, including the application of qualified majority voting to foreign and security policy, to frontiers and to tax harmonisation. If I might be entirely fair, I should also mention that the European People's party decided that qualified majority voting and participation and monitoring by the European Parliament must be worked out and that intergovernmental co-operation in foreign and security policy must be replaced by qualified majority voting.
It is perfectly clear that there is a battle to be fought to make sure that the national veto is maintained. There is nothing anti-European in what I say; it is merely anti-federalist. That is because the Conservative party will defend the United Kingdom's vital interests in the European Union.

Airmobile Brigade

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role and activities of 24 Airmobile Brigade in the former Yugoslavia. [36565]

Mr. Portillo: Following the taking of British hostages at the end of May, 24 Airmobile Brigade was deployed to the former Yugoslavia to make clear our determination to enhance the effectiveness of UNPROFOR and provide additional protection to British troops. As part of the changes in UN force deployments requested by the UN Secretary-General, most of the troops are relocating to England and will remain on short notice to return to theatre if required.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. As well as paying tribute to the Highland Gunners who took part in action outside Sarajevo this summer, will he also pay tribute to the other elements of 24 Airmobile who were stationed rather unhappily in Ploce on the Adriatic coast? They were in great discomfort, but nevertheless provided an important deterrent role.

Mr. Portillo: Yes, I am extremely pleased to do that. While for the majority of 24 Airmobile their mission in Bosnia turned out to be somewhat unglamorous, that does not mean that their role was unimportant. They played an important role in deterring and they lived under difficult conditions with very good cheer and I congratulate them on that.

Mr. Gapes: When discussing former Yugoslavia and the remaining British forces there, will the Minister make it clear to the United States that we do not intend our forces to take one side in the conflict and that when the implementation of the peace plans begins, firm and, if necessary, tough military action should be take against Croatia if it continues to violate human rights and the rights of civilians throughout the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important that the forces in Yugoslavia—including the implementation forces—should be even-handed. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about human rights violations. We wish to have further details about what has been happening in Krajina following the Croatian advances.

Sir James Spicer: My right hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to 24 Airmobile Brigade and to all our troops engaged in Yugoslavia. Can he give any indication of the total cost to the British taxpayer of our operations there over the past three or four years? To what extent have they been underwritten by the United Nations, and how much is currently outstanding?

Mr. Portillo: I speak from memory, but I think that the cost has been £224 million so far. We have recovered about £70 million, but in principle most of that sum is refundable by the United Nations.

Anti-personnel Land Mines

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he is having with other countries' Defence Ministers to reduce the number of anti-personnel land mines currently deployed. [36566]

Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government are at the forefront of international efforts to restrict the export and use of anti-personnel mines. We are disappointed that the recent conference which was called to tighten such restrictions was unable to reach agreement, but we will continue our efforts.

Mr. Alton: While I share the Minister's disappointment about the breakdown of the talks in Vienna recently when the United Nations held a conference on inhuman weapons, who does he think was to blame for the breakdown of those talks? Will he clarify the Government's position on self-destruct weapons and whether that played any part in the breakdown of the talks? Does he agree that with more than one million fatalities so far from anti-personnel mines and inhuman weapons and with many countries littered with hundreds of thousands of such devices, it is a major humanitarian and development issue, and that, when the conference meets again in January, our Government should give a moral lead in ensuring that the world is rid of anti-personnel mines?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have some sympathy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his question. I do not think that it would be appropriate or constructive for me to attempt to point the finger at any particular country, because we want to achieve a successful result when the conference resumes, in December we hope. We and our allies believe that a bad agreement would have been worse than no agreement at all. In order to press for a better outcome, we strove for the resumption rather than the total abandonment of the conference.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of any agreement covering self-destruct and detectable anti-personnel mines, because those mines cause severe damage to civilians throughout the world. We want to restrict their use and their export.

Mr. Bellingham: What is being done about de-mining measures in countries such as Afghanistan, Laos, Cambodia and Rwanda? Can my hon. Friend confirm that, with expenditure totalling nearly £20 million, Britain is in the lead in spending money on such projects? Would he agree that that pragmatic policy, combined with his policy to impose a moratorium on the export of land mines, is the right one rather than the rubbish spoken by many Opposition Members?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I can confirm that we have committed nearly £17 million to mine clearance projects around the world. We have funded projects in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, northern Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia and the Yemen. We are one of the world's leading contributors to mine clearance programmes. We have also been working with the United States and others on proposals for a land mine control programme, which would regulate the production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
We believe that the conference result demonstrated that a total ban on anti-personnel mines—called for from a number of quarters—is not possible at this stage because


there is simply not enough international support for it. We will work, however, for a successful outcome at the future conference, which we hope will take place in December.

Local Authority Discussions

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities in the last year to discuss changes to the size of the defence industry. [36575]

Mr. Arbuthnot: We try to involve local authorities by giving them early warning of changes to defence requirements for land and buildings, and we seek their help in finding alternative uses when those lands and buildings are no longer required.

Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, since 1979, more than 345,000 highly skilled people have been paid off from the defence industry? Is it not about time that the Government formed a diversification agency to employ those people? The worry in the communities where those redundancies have occurred is that, without some action, those skills will be lost to their future generations.

Mr. Arbuthnot: We consider that decisions on how to adapt to changes in market circumstances and what products to make are for the commercial judgment of companies. I must say that, if ever there were a Labour Government again, no company would be likely to ask for the advice of Labour Ministers on how to run industry, because they have never run a whelk stall.

Mr. Wilkinson: In his discussions with local authorities and defence industry leaders, can my hon. Friend reassure them that Her Majesty's Government are using their best efforts to ensure an equitable work share on important collaborative programmes, such as the Eurofighter 2000? That programme has been seriously delayed because the Germans are insisting on a bigger work share than that to which they are entitled according to their production requirements.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I can indeed confirm that the Eurofighter 2000 programme is intended to form the cornerstone of our air defence in the next century. If the cuts in defence spending proposed by many Opposition Members ever came into effect, we would have to have far more discussions with local authorities than we do now; then perhaps even Labour councils might begin to recognise that one cannot trust Labour on defence.

Mr. Spellar: Why will the Minister not accept that the real problems facing many areas are as a result of the downsizing of the defence industry? Instead of using the cheap political rhetoric that we have just heard, why will he not accept the responsibility of Government to set up a defence diversification agency to work with industry and local authorities to deal with the problem?

Dr. Reid: At least my hon. Friend served in the cadets.

Mr. Arbuthnot: So did I. It is not cheap political rhetoric; it is in fact the truth. None the less, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I feel sure that he will carry them out very effectively. I am pleased to be able to say that our recent decision, for example, on the Rosyth naval base, which I announced last Tuesday, had the full support and involvement of Fife regional

council. That decision has been widely welcomed. We are grateful for the input of local authorities. We do not believe that a defence diversification agency would add anything to the conversations which we have already had.

Mr. Gamier: Does my hon. Friend accept that, were the policies of the Opposition to come into force, there would not simply be diversification of our defence industries but destruction of them? Not only can we not trust the Labour party on defence but the Labour party itself does not trust Labour on defence, judging from the policies that it advocates and the votes that were not taken at the Labour party conference.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I did put it like that myself.

Greenham Common

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer Greenham Common air base to Newbury district council. [36568]

Mr. Soames: Newbury district council, as one of the former owners, will have the opportunity to acquire part of the open area at Greenham Common under the Crichel Down rules. The area which has been developed is not covered by these rules and is expected to be sold on the open market.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that one of the main causes of delay is the fact that the developed part around the main gate is still common land? Would not a faster way of going forward be to exchange land between the developed land around the main gate and other land adjacent to but not part of the common, so as to avoid the whole issue of deregistering the common?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is a fiendishly complicated matter, made the more so because of the element of common land, which, as he knows, has been the subject of a court case which recently found in favour of the Ministry of Defence. He will understand that it is our intention to ensure that the best possible use is made of the whole site and that it benefits the community and taxpayers. I can assure him that we are taking a great deal of trouble in processing it all, and I would be happy to discuss it further with the hon. Gentleman if he wished to do so.

Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible use of the land would be to make Greenham Common available to the Millennium Commission so that it may be used as a theme park for the great failures of socialism? There could be monuments to unilateral disarmament and global socialism, and it would serve as an everlasting reminder of the fact that we cannot trust Labour on defence.

Mr. Soames: That is a fantastically tempting proposition, which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would find very interesting to push forward. I shall ensure that is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Married Quarters

Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made in dealing with surplus married quarters. [36569]

Mr. Soames: We are making good progress in dealing with surplus married quarters and aim to dispose of 4,000 quarters by the summer of 1996.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree—I suspect that he does—that it has been a scandal that so many houses were empty—[Interruption.] Does he not agree that it has been a scandal that so many houses were left empty in the village of—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman still agree that it was a scandal that so many houses were left empty in the village of Longhoughton for so long when they could have been taken over by the district council or by a housing association? It is not only a scandal at a time of housing shortages but an embarrassment to the Royal Air Force locally, because it has no control over the situation at all.

Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has taken much longer than we would have wished to resolve the matter. I know that he has been following it keenly and pushing it along. Our aim is always to dispose of surplus property at the earliest opportunity so that it can be brought back into use as soon as possible. The sale of 20 houses to a housing association will be completed in December. I know that this will be welcome news to local people in housing need.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate the Government on their excellent progress in disposing of surplus properties in Portland and around Bovington. May I, however, add to the pleas I have made in the past as a result of talking to local authorities and housing associations? Many people would also like quite a large number of these properties to be sold to private people because we do not want to have a block of just council properties again; private owners tend to bring up the whole quality of an estate for the people living in it.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's point; what he says is self-evidently true. Whenever possible, quarters that are temporarily surplus are leased to local authorities and housing associations. We are currently looking to identify more properties that can be leased in the short term which would well fulfil some of my hon. Friend's ambitions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36589]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yet another fall in the unemployment figures, which are now below even those of Germany for

the first time in recent years? Is this not a resounding vindication of the Government's policies and is it not about time that the Labour party explained how a minimum wage would help young people to get jobs?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest unemployment figures are quite excellent. He raises an important point in directing the House towards the minimum wage. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, said:
Some Party Colleagues have advocated such a wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the commitment meaningful.
Will the deputy leader of the Labour party now break the habit of his party and answer the question? What is the figure that would give meaning to the policy?

Mr. Prescott: This is an historic moment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Prime Minister's questions. It has been a long. time, but he has finally made it.
Given the Prime Minister's belated but welcome concern with waste and mismanagement abroad, can we now expect him to show the same concern for waste and mismanagement at home? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much money was wasted on the poll tax? How much money was wasted on the new bureaucracy in the health service? While he is at it, can he tell us how much it cost to set up and run his own new empire?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box today in this position. Of course, I reciprocate in welcoming him to the position he holds. But I cannot help but notice that, while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has trusted me to come alone, the right hon. Gentleman has had a minder appointed to look after him. The curious point about the minder is that he has not even had the courage to turn up to help with the minding process. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well—[Interruption.] Do I gather that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has crossed the Floor and is now sitting on this side of the House, or is he scouring away in the basement somewhere relaying what is going on in the House to the leader of the Labour party, who, of course, will never be able to get a first-hand account from the deputy leader because they do not talk? It really is ridiculous—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I want brief questions and brief answers now.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that we shall get a brief answer, Madam Speaker, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool has now turned up.

Mr. Prescott: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a proper answer, may I help him? According to the Government's own figures, £14 billion was wasted on the poll tax and £1 billion on the new bureaucracy in the health service. Is not the real truth that the Government's press and publicity machine costs the taxpayer £1 million every working day? Is that not the real cost to the country of the right hon. Gentleman's new title? Is it not clear that something so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, when a Government have as


many good policies as we have, it is our duty to draw them to the attention of the people who will benefit from them. Our first obligation is to point out that, for every £1 spent on the health service in 1978–79, we spent £5 last year.

Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36590]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will resume his seat.

Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the BBC and Channel 4 on transmitting live the whole of last week's debate on the Prison Service? Does he agree that that provided viewers with the opportunity to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary demolish the Opposition's unworthy and unsuccessful attempt to smear his reputation?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It was excellent that the House and a wider public had the chance to see the vacuum that lies behind Labour's allegations. They also had the chance to hear the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend. If the BBC continues to show the Opposition in that light, it will not be Alastair Campbell who rings up to complain but the League Against Cruel Sports.

Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36591]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Ms Lynne: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, because of financial constraints, Rochdale health authority proposes that elderly, critically ill patients should not be allowed into nursing homes funded by the national health service unless they will die within four weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ultimately the responsibility of the Government?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is the ultimate responsibility of the Government to provide the excellent health service that we do. I would not be prepared to discuss at the Dispatch Box the sort of case that the hon. Lady put to me without a chance to examine it in more detail. However, the health service is attracting increasing funds and the results are increasingly attractive to the public. Public assessment of the quality of the health service is rising consistently.

Mr. Brooke: After the warm-up bout last week, will my right hon. Friend arrange, after the manner of the Ryder and Walker cups, a series of singles matches between members of the Cabinet and their opposite

numbers, not least so that we can see whether the captain of the other side, in a manner unusual in international golf, continues to intervene to help his hon. Friends out of bunkers?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a pastmaster at coming to the heart of a matter. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition will not want to reveal his shadow Cabinet too conspicuously because it is self-evident that the parliamentary Labour party has elected a shadow Cabinet diametrically opposite to the direction in which the Leader of the Opposition wants to go.

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36592]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Purchase: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that investment in manufacturing is lower than it was six years ago, despite a recent and welcome improvement? Does he accept that the lack of investment—widely acknowledged as a British problem—is directly responsible for the loss of 520 jobs in my constituency at the British Steel plant which is the only supplier of specialist seamless tubes in the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to intervene—preferably before breakfast—and ask for a rethink on the closure? Does he recognise that, if the plant closes, we shall have an even bigger balance of trade problem than we have at present?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would help his constituency if he got up earlier in the morning, as he would discover that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 30 per cent. in the past two and a half years.

Sir Michael Marshall: On United Nations day, will my right hon. Friend reflect that the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference at the General Assembly in New York a month ago agreed unanimously that the problems of the UN are our problems and that, if we did not have the organisation, we would have to invent it?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution to the subject, and particularly to the work of the IPU, and the House is indebted to him for that. Our support of the UN is second to none, but that is no justification for the organisation wasting money and not collecting its proper dues.

Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36593]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Hodge: We seem to have some difficulty in eliciting direct answers from the Deputy Prime Minister. Following what my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition said, an article in The Independent yesterday asserted that the Deputy Prime Minister had


spent £80,000 of public money on a desk diary. Did the Deputy Prime Minister receive permission from the Prime Minister to spend that money in such an extravagant manner?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will find that, if she relies on the national press for the basis of her research, she will be consistently wrong-footed. I spent no money on a desk. The hon. Lady would be better employed praising the Government, who have presided over a 22 per cent. reduction in unemployment in her constituency.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36594]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear the answers to the questions, whether the House does or not. [Interruption.] Order. Do be quiet.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less a luminary than the director of the Fabian Society has come out in support of grant-maintained schools, much to the relief of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is opposing him on the matter? With almost cross-party support for the measure, can we count on the Government to proceed with all speed to make all our schools grant maintained, thus bringing a choice of school to every parent?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to this critical matter. The fact is that, in putting forward the proposal, the Fabian Society is once again looking to the Conservatives for the ideas which are taking us forward into the next century. For all the rhetoric of the left, what the Opposition are about is abolishing grant-maintained schools, abolishing grammar schools, abolishing city technology colleges and abolishing simple performance tables and simple tests—everything is for dogma and rhetoric, and nothing is for quality in education.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that all this knockabout opposite will be taken very

badly by starving millions in the third world who are already fearful of the proposed cuts—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, as usual. Now we have the Prime Minister at the United Nations talking about abolishing UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. That will go down extremely badly because everyone knows that, like the cuts in overseas aid, the proposals are to fund the pre-election tax cut bribes of the Tory Government.

The Deputy Prime Minister: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman refer to knockabout Opposition when he first intervened? It cannot be explained in any other language. This country has the fifth largest aid programme in the world. How can the Labour party decry that? When one adds to that our inward investment in other people's countries and the remarkable contribution that we make to peacekeeping, one has just one further example of the way in which, whatever this country does, the Labour party seeks to decry and destroy it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36595]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend welcome the protestations that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition parties, that all of us in the House are in favour of increasing investment in our railways? Does he believe that those protestations are consistent with, first, the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the railways will be renationalised and, secondly, the statement by the new shadow spokesman on transport that she would not pay for it?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but it is also interested in what the deputy leader of the Labour party has to say to the union that sponsors him. Is he in favour of it taking strike action and imposing hardship on very large numbers of Londoners trying to get to work, or is he not in support of that?

Constituency Surgeries

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for another Member of this House to advertise surgeries in my constituency and seek contact with my constituents? In seeking your advice, I should add that my constituents will be excluded from my constituency following boundary changes at the next general election. However, it is my belief that it is my duty to represent my constituents until that time, and that no other Member should intervene.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. Until the next general election, the hon. Gentleman represents his constituents, even if he has boundary changes. I, too, have boundary changes, but I still represent the people who put me here from West Bromwich, West. If the hon. Gentleman would like to let me see the advertisement, I shall be glad to deal with it.

Registration of Fostering Agencies

Ms Ann Coffey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable voluntary and independent fostering agencies to approve foster carers subject to registration and inspection of the agencies.
I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is present to listen to my introduction of the Bill. The Department of Health's latest figures show that 60 per cent. of children looked after by local authorities are placed with foster families. That proportion has increased since 1989. Foster care is the community's response to the needs of parents and children in difficulties.
The children who are accommodated in foster care are not blue-eyed angels. They have many needs and problems, which can be displayed in very difficult behaviour. They often come at short notice from traumatic family situations which often take time to resolve, either through rehabilitation of the child at home or through alternative long-term foster or adoptive placement.
Foster parents face increasingly complex tasks—for example, contributing to assessments, dealing with parental visits and giving evidence in court, in addition to nurturing hurt and sometimes aggressive children. The majority of foster carers are volunteers; they are not paid. They volunteer for altruistic motives. It is their way of contributing to the community. It is their choice and their decision.
Without their volunteering, the child care system would collapse. It is remarkable, therefore, that, under the present regulations, foster carers are effectively denied the opportunity to choose for whom they foster.
Voluntary organisations have a long tradition of providing services for children—Barnardo's, Catholic Rescue, The Children's Society, and the National Children's Home, to name but a few. Those organisations have contributed to innovative services and provided diversity and choice in the placement of children as a complement to local authority provision. Many of the organisations are already adoption agencies, and they run registered children's homes.
Under present regulations, however, they cannot approve their own foster carers. They can approve parents for life, but not parents for one night. The Foster Placement Regulations 1991, which are clarified by circular number LAC(94)20, state that voluntary organisations can approve foster carers only when delegated to do so by a local authority in relation to a particular child, that those foster carers are deemed to be on the list of the local authority and that any subsequent placements have to be agreed by the local authority. So voluntary agencies can recruit, train and assess, but those foster carers end up on the list of the local authority that has placed the first child. They are owned by the local authority.
As people may have been attracted to an organisation because of their religious beliefs, it is clearly unacceptable that they find themselves as local authority foster parents. If that is what they had wanted to be, they would have applied to the local authority in the first place. A letter sent to me by Norwood Child Care states:
Foster parents come to our agency because it is Jewish and because it is small. They do not want to belong to the council because of a legal requirement.


The regulations raise other technical issues, which I do not have the time to discuss. The circular also states that, in delegating duties,
the local authority will need to satisfy itself about the capacity of the organisation to discharge duties on its behalf.
That may not be difficult with adoption agencies, but a number of smaller organisations are coming into the field. One matter of concern is that the study by the social services inspectorate into small, unregisterable children's homes, which was published in August, identified some private organisations running small, unregisterable children's homes in the profit-making sector and parallel voluntary fostering sector.
There is no central point where concerns about agencies can be collated. Termination of approval of foster parents does not constitute termination of approval for an organisation, where problems may have been in the support offered in the placement or in the management of the organisation.
Indeed, the inspectorate's report identified proprietors of children's homes who had had previous convictions for fraud and for sexual and physical abuse. It is worrying that those same proprietors might be running voluntary fostering agencies.
Only registration and inspection similar to that for adoption agencies can ensure that organisations maintain proper standards. That step has the widespread approval of reputable organisations in the voluntary and independent sector, as well as the Association of Directors of Social Services, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering and the National Foster Care Association.
Clarity of responsibility is one of the prevailing issues in child protection. That clarity of responsibility in foster placements will be met by registration and inspection. I am conscious that the Department of Health consultative document, "Moving Forward" asked the question, "Should voluntary and private sector agencies be subject to statutory regulation?" Before one asks that, one should deal with the question whether voluntary agencies can approve their own foster carers.
Earlier this year, the Minister proposed to extend the fostering regulations to include private agencies, to encourage diversity and choice. I find it surprising that he was unaware that the existing regulations were denying voluntary organisations the opportunity to provide that choice and diversity, and denying foster parents the opportunity to make their voluntary contribution to the agency of their choice.
The Government have not provided an opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the House on fostering. Indeed, the statement by the Minister on the result of his initial consultation was issued during the recess, as was the report on small unregisterable children's homes. The House can draw its own conclusions about that timing.
I am aware that this Bill will not make any parliamentary progress, but I am bringing it before the House because the issues it raises are important enough to be a matter of public record. I urge the House to support the Bill, as a clear message to the Minister that we want voluntary agencies to be able to approve their own foster carers, subject to registration and inspection. In doing so, we would recognise the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to children's services, as well as the contribution of the thousands of volunteers who, as foster carers, are the unseen and often undervalued carers of society's most difficult and disturbed children.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. George Howarth, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Janet Anderson.

REGISTRATION OF FOSTERING AGENCIES

Ms Ann Coffey accordingly presented a Bill to enable voluntary and independent fostering agencies to approve foster carers subject to registration and inspection of the agencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 October, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

Questions (Transfer)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to some correspondence that causes me great concern. I tabled an oral question the other day to the Deputy Prime Minister—and if I recall correctly, there was a point of order on this matter only two or three days ago—asking
What plans he has to meet representatives of Campbell's Soups to discuss competition in the production of soups.
To me, that is an important question, because Campbell's Soups, an American company, last August purchased Home Pride in my constituency, and last week announced that 120 jobs are going to be lost in Maryport.
I tabled the question after taking advice from the Clerks in the Table Office, and now, because of some civil servant's view that that question is not relevant to the Deputy Prime Minister, it has been transferred. I object very strongly, because I made a point of ensuring that it was in order so that, in two weeks' time, I could ask the Deputy Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box—it came up as No. 4 on the ballot—a question on this issue of great importance in my constituency.
I wonder whether you would ask the Parliamentary Clerk in the Cabinet Office to withdraw the letter that I have received, and to advise me that I can table this question. I do not do this only on my own behalf; other hon. Members are being affected by such decisions. We believe that we are being most unreasonably treated. It is very damaging to me in my constituency.

Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. I have heard similar complaints from other

hon. Members. As the House knows, I have no influence on or responsibility for the transfer of questions. It is not the Parliamentary Clerks who make transfers, but Ministers themselves who are finally responsible for transferring questions to other Departments.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister? I would encourage him to do so, because the matter can be dealt with if the hon. Gentleman would write to the Deputy Prime Minister raising the matter and asking him why the question has been transferred.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that you would wish us to proceed in that way, Madam Speaker, but the reality is that the Deputy Prime Minister will say that he does not believe that it is his departmental responsibility, but a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food But the issues that I am driving at are competitiveness and competition, which fall directly within the right hon. Gentleman's brief—it was on that basis that the Table Office accepted the question.
I believe that we have now got to the position where the Speaker of the House of Commons should intervene, with a view to protecting the rights of Back Benchers.

Madam Speaker: This is not a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons; it is a question for the Minister concerned. It is the responsibility of Ministers to transfer questions. This is not the first time that it has occurred, and I take it seriously. I shall see what I can do, but I have no powers in these matters.
I do understand the frustrations felt by Back Benchers, who seek out the Minister who they feel is responsible for a particular matter, only to find that it is sent elsewhere. I have every sympathy; I understand the frustrations; I would ask the hon. Gentleman to write and ask for an explanation, and I shall do what I can.

Opposition Day

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Environment (Scotland)

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the depth of public concern in Scotland and beyond at HM Government's failure to provide proper stewardship of Scotland's environment; notes the triple threat posed by plans to increase the number of reprocessing contracts at Dounreay, the disclosure of the munitions dump at Beaufort Dyke and continuing uncertainty over Shell's plans to decommission the Brent Spar; views with alarm reports that between five and fifteen thousand fuel rods of US origin may be destined for Dounreay, pending the decision by the USA Department of Energy; further notes that over a thousand phosphorus devices have been found along the shores of south west Scotland; is dismayed that crucial decisions affecting the Scottish people are taken without any semblance of public consultation; calls on Her Majesty's Pollution Inspectorate to refuse to grant any further applications for discharge authorisations at Dounreay; demands an urgent investigation into the munitions dump at Beaufort Dyke so that the dangers posed to the public and the marine environment can be properly assessed; urges the Government to refuse any application for a licence for the offshore disposal of the Brent Spar or any other North Sea installation until such disposal can be assessed by an independent authority; and rejects the contemptuous treatment which fleeces Scotland of its natural resources while imposing unacceptable environmental dangers upon the Scottish population, threatening industries such as fishing, farming, food processing, whisky and tourism which depend crucially on Scotland's perception as a country with a clean environment.
In choosing this topic for today's debate, my colleagues and I in the Scottish National party seek to highlight what we consider to be the real concerns that are uppermost in the minds of Scottish people. We have chosen to focus on three specific issues.
First, I refer to the disclosure by the Ministry of Defence in June of this year that more than 1 million tonnes of conventional munitions had been dumped at Beaufort dyke off the south-west coast of Scotland over 50 years, between the 1920s and the 1970s. Secondly, there is the prospect of up to 15,000 spent nuclear fuel rods of United States origin making their way to Dounreay for reprocessing, with all the risks that that will inevitably entail, both at Dounreay and in the course of transportation. Thirdly, I want to mention the continuing uncertainty over the disposal of Brent Spar, with the Government refusing to rule out the idea that it could yet be dumped at sea.
Each of these issues is of vital importance to every man, woman and child in Scotland, because of their impact on the perception of Scotland as a clean country on which so many of our vital industries depend—farming, fishing, food processing, whisky and tourism. Each issue is different, but they all have one thing in common: they raise questions about the safety of people's lives, the security of their jobs and the sustainability of their communities.
They also have something else in common—an apparent view of Scotland as some kind of convenient waste disposal unit. That certainly makes a change from

the Thatcher years, when Scotland appeared to be regarded as a testing ground, but I do not think that the people of Scotland will regard it as a change for the better.

Mr. Bill Walker: How many Scots have lost their lives as a result of the transport of nuclear equipment of any kind through Scotland?

Ms Cunningham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the point. We are discussing an enormous increase in the likelihood of risk. We are talking about risk in this debate. I shall return to that issue, but I want first to deal with Beaufort dyke, an issue of current concern up and down the west coast of Scotland.
If this debate had been held two years ago and an Opposition Member had stood up and said that more than 1 million tonnes of bombs, incendiary devices and other high explosives had been dumped in Scotland as a deliberate act of Government policy, he or she would no doubt have been accused of scaremongering and irresponsibility. Yet, on 29 June this year, that is exactly what the Ministry of Defence admitted, in a letter to the Irish Sea Forum:
In total, we estimate that the Ministry of Defence may have disposed of over 1 million tons of conventional munitions within Beauforts Dyke … between the end of the war and December 1948 some 135,000 tons of conventional munitions were disposed of at this location. Subsequently other dumpings took place during the 1950s, particularly of aircraft bombs and disposals continued at a rate of about 20,000 tons per annum into the late 1950s".
The letter goes on to state that, by the early 1970s, the annual tonnage had reduced to about 3,000 tonnes, and that Beaufort dyke was last used by the Ministry of Defence for general munitions dumping in 1973—although I understand that there was a further emergency dump in 1976. We are also told that, between July and October 1945, some 14,000 tonnes of 8-in artillery rockets filled with phosgene were similarly disposed of.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but is she aware that, in the period 1945 to 1955, many thousands of chemical warfare bombs were transported from Wales for dumping off the Scottish coast at Beaufort dyke, and that the safety of those bombs has been a matter of considerable concern?

Ms Cunningham: I was not aware of that, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it shows the extent of what has been going on in Beaufort dyke. Off the west coast of Scotland, we have the largest single underwater munitions weapons repository in western Europe. The Government have admitted that there was a 50-year programme of dumping between one of the UK's busiest shipping lanes, only six miles from the Scottish coast.
Neither Parliament nor the Scottish people have ever been told what was going on, let alone consulted. The Scottish people, their elected representatives and their environment have been treated with utter contempt by successive UK Goverments, as though they were physically and politically expendable.
I should point out that Stena Sealink carried 1.3 million passengers between Stranraer and Larne in the past year. Those waters are also home to deep-water trawlers and Royal Navy submarines. It is a busy channel. An undersea gas pipeline is being planned across the channel, with construction later this year. The company involved, Premier Transco, has already announced that it has


changed the planned route to take account of Beaufort dyke. When the Ministry of Defence concedes, however, that it does not have complete records, the situation is clearly fraught with difficulty.
The concern of the local population was summed up very well by the chief executive of Wigtownshire district council, Mr. Alastair Geddes, when he said:
Nothing is more damaging than uncertainty. An inquiry should look at where the dumping took place, what was dumped and whether or not it remains in a stable condition and also if there is to be any danger in the future.
There is understandable local concern about the impact that that uncertainty will have on the economy of the area. Wigtown had the lowest rate of economic growth in Scotland this year, and Upper Nithsdale had the highest level of unemployment in Scotland. Already, two shore front developers in Stranraer have threatened to withdraw their development plans, and uncertainty can only harm the economic prospects of those who have invested heavily in the area.
I now turn to the nature of the materials dumped in Beaufort dyke. Responding in 1985 to a question from the late right hon. Donald Stewart MP, the then Scottish Secretary, Mr. George Younger, said:
Because of the non-toxic nature of the materials that have been dumped at Beaufort dyke it has not been considered necessary to check for leakage or environmental pollution."—[Official Report, 1985: Vol. 71, c. 518]
Yet that statement is in direct contradiction of the letter of 29 June from the Ministry of Defence, which refers to the toxic potential of munitions materials. It is worth recalling the Department of the Environment's definition of toxic material, in May 1995:
a substance which inhaled or ingested or penetrates the skin may involve serious, acute, or chronic health risks or even death.
Yet, by their own admission, that is what has been dumped off the coast of Scotland.
Will the Minister confirm that, although the toxic potential of munitions material may be reduced by the combined effects of dilution, dispersion, hydrolysis and low temperatures, it is not eliminated? If, as the Government admitted in 1985, it was not their practice to check for leakage or environment pollution, on what scientific evidence do they base their assertion that the toxic potential of the munitions material has been reduced? Further inconsistencies demand clarification.
There is the whole question of the failure to mention any dumping of chemical weapons in the previous claim by the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Viscount Cranbourne, in a letter dated 13 October 1992 to the, hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that small quantities of chemical weapons were dumped at Beaufort dyke. The letter stated:
small quantities of chemical weapons were sea dumped in 1945 in Beaufort's dyke a deep water … trench in the Irish Sea.
Dr. Paul Johnston, a munitions expert at Exeter university, has said:
The conventional weapons are still active and potentially explosive. The chemical drums are corroding and some may have been punctured.
He has warned of what he says is
a mind-blowing potential for an environmental disaster.

The Ministry of Defence says that it is prepared to carry out a detailed survey of the dyke, but that, as long as the material remains undisturbed 263 fathoms below the waves, there is no cause for concern. The Government must be made to realise that only a full and urgent investigation will suffice.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons. Incidentally, I hope that she will bring the Scottish National party councillor for Newton Stewart on side with what she says and what I have been saying as well.
Does she agree that, although what is dumped in Beaufort dyke is bad, even worse is what has been dumped outside the permitted area of Beaufort dyke? Does she further agree that it is outrageous that, when we met the Secretary of State for Defence last week, he did not admit that the laying of the gas pipeline had been stopped for six days because of the dangers to which those laying it had been subjected?
Does she also agree that it is imperative that the Secretary of State for Scotland considers that when he is considering the report of the reporter into the proposed electricity interconnector with Northern Ireland, because that could also cause great disturbance of the munitions and chemicals that have been dumped outside Beaufort dyke? That is an extra reason why the proposal should be rejected.

Ms Cunningham: Some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be brought out in the course of the debate. The matter is of great concern, because, while what has been dumped in Beaufort dyke is a matter of some uncertainty, what has been dumped in the surrounding area is a matter of even greater uncertainty. We shall be talking about that in a little more detail, because it highlights people's concern. If the Government themselves do not take any notice of what is going on, how can we possibly have any control over our environment?
I recognise that the Government have travelled some distance since expressing the view in 1985 that it was not necessary to check for leakage or environmental pollution, but they will have to go much further if they are to allay public anxieties.
Why, having written to the Secretary of State for Scotland more than a month ago calling for a public inquiry, has Wigtown district council still to receive a reply? Will the Minister confirm that the gathering of water samples at the north channel dump site by the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food were concluded in August? If that is the case, will details be published? The Ministry of Defence letter of 29 June said that results would be released on completion of the tests. If those tests were completed in August, we would all be interested to know what immediate publication meant.
Finally, it is a matter currently causing great concern that more than 1,000 phosphorus devices have been scattered along the shore of south-west Scotland. Can the Government give us any information about that? On Saturday, we learned from the national press that a four-year-old boy had come across a phosphorus flare and been burned. In March 1994, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), said that


investigations had been unable to identify the origins or purpose of those objects, except that records showed that no phosphorus objects were ever stored at Beaufort dyke.
I dare say that people on the west coast of Scotland would be obliged if the Government could do something fairly soon about finding out, if they do not already know, precisely what these things are and from where they come. It seems quite extraordinary that they are washing up in such vast numbers, yet the Government appear thus far not to wish to take any view on them. That cannot be enough when it is clear that the devices have been washed ashore from somewhere, and continue to be.
I am sorry to say that the overwhelming impression currently being given is of near indifference to the public's real and understandable concern. In the face of that, it is little wonder that public confidence has been so undermined. We are suffering now for decisions made decades ago. We must have action now, so that we do not suffer in future decades for the current lack of decisions.
Environmental decisions cannot be made on an ad hoc basis, having regard only to the short term. All the matters raised today have serious long-term implications, and none more so than another matter raised in the motion—the possibility that the United States Government will decide to send between 5,000 and 15,000 US-origin spent fuel rods to Dounreay for reprocessing.
The volume of such a transportation affects most of Scotland—and, indeed, may well affect large parts of England as well. The port of entry may be Scrabster, Aberdeen or Leith; the route will go right through the centre of Scotland, up through its most populated areas. Indeed, if the items are brought ashore at English ports, they will go right through the most heavily populated parts of England as well. Once the fuel rods have arrived at Dounreay and been reprocessed, waste is likely to be retained for up to 25 years.
The irony of all this is that the United States Government have been carrying out an on-going consultation exercise among the US population, and we are told that a decision is imminent. The United States Government appear to have regarded the issue as serious enough for detailed consideration; whatever we may think of the range of possible options, the contrast with what is happening in Scotland could not be more acute. The United States Government have engaged in no consultation there—unless my questionnaire has been lost in the post. Their openness does not appear to extend to us who are likely to be most affected. Nor have our own Government engaged in any consultation.
The whole issue of Dounreay is very controversial. In view of that, should there not be consultation before we proceed? There has been an appalling loss of confidence in Dounreay over the years. I shall refer to only a few of the more recent developments that have led to that loss of confidence, but I could mention many others.
A report published in May this year by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, does nothing to allway public concern about Dounreay. The then chair of the advisory committee said:
The contamination on the beach and within the site has proved to be higher than I had previously been told. I received the highest radiation dose I have ever recorded during my time with the RWMAC while standing at the top of the waste disposal shaft. To say they"—
he was referring to the Dounreay management—

were lying is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach.
That sentiment is echoed by the chair of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. A further eight hot spots have been found since the sweep began in July; moreover, particles found on the foreshore are apparently likely to cause death if ingested. For that, we can thank Dr. Wheldon of the committee.
Those are only the most recent examples in a catalogue of contamination reaching many years back. The lack of public confidence in Dounreay is well founded; yet we may face a considerable increase in activity if the United States opts for sending some or all those elements to Dounreay.

Mr. Alex Salmond: If, following widespread public consultation in the United States, it is concluded that it would be a good idea to send all this material for reprocessing in Scotland, is it not reasonable to suppose that the outcome of widespread public consultation in Scotland might be the conclusion that it would not be a good idea? No country wants to be the world's nuclear laundry.

Ms Cunningham: Many people would agree with my hon. Friend—

Mr. Salmond: Including my hon. Friend.

Ms Cunningham: Indeed, although I was not planning to use the words "nuclear laundry" in the context of my speech—"nuclear dustbin" is used more often than "laundry", but if that United States decision is taken, it will lead to a massive increase in activity at Dounreay.

Mr. John Maxton: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's speech, and I share many of her concerns about the transport and reprocessing of nuclear materials, but I notice that there is no mention of Sellafield in her motion. Is that because it is not in Scotland? Is she happy that the reprocessing should be done in Sellafield because it is not in Scotland? If so, is she aware that my constituents live nearer to Sellafield than to Dounreay?

Ms Cunningham: No. The decision was to highlight current environmental concerns in Scotland. We are, of course, concerned with environmental questions throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and, indeed, in the rest of the world. When I come to the question of transportation, I will be talking about transport through England as well as across international waters, so it is not right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we are not interested in what is happening outside Scotland.
It is a question not just of on-site dangers, but of transportation dangers. The routes may be many and various, as I have already said. The road route passes through many of Scotland's most densely populated regions. As I said earlier, the spent fuel rods are brought ashore at ports in Aberdeen and Leith. All the regions on the east coast would be included, as well as the places that the A9 goes through. If the things are brought ashore in England, they will be transported through the heart of England. It may have been more interesting to hear some of the speeches of English Members who might be concerned if their constituencies were on those routes. Many people will have those concerns.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I speak as an English Member of Parliament very near to a nuclear


power station, and I welcome its contribution to a clean electricity supply. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that her party is still opposed to the principle of nuclear power, and explain how Scotland would possibly survive economically without 50 per cent. of its existing power generation?

Ms Cunningham: In Scotland, we currently export more power than we use. We are an energy-rich country, and there is no difficulty with making a conversion from nuclear energy to alternative sources of energy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have more details on that, he may see me later. I was discussing the dangers—

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Cunningham: No. I have given way frequently in the past 15 minutes. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will continue, and make the point about the safety of transportation on land.
Undoubtedly, test accident standards are set down for specially designed flasks that carry this waste, but those standards cannot begin to accord with the standards necessary for what is likely to happen in a real accident.
For example, the test standards for transportation in the marine environment work on the basis of testing flasks for 30 minutes in fires of 800 deg C. I understand, however—we have the International Maritime Organisation to thank for these figures—that the average length of a shipboard fire at sea is 23 hours, and that the fire is likely to reach 1,100 deg C, so the test standards that are being applied are not the standards that are required if flasks are to cope with any such accident at sea.
If hon. Members doubt that, I refer them to a specific incident in 1991, when a ferry and a petroleum tanker collided off Livorno on the coast of Italy. The fire on the ferry burned for 45 hours and reached more than 1,000 deg C. That would suggest that test standards of anything less than those temperatures and those times are wholly unsatisfactory. Any such accident has serious—if not catastrophic—implications for the Scottish economy and its environment.
I understand that marine insurers refuse cover for radioactive contamination because of the scale of the likely effects of such an accident. The position on land is little better. Local authority emergency planning units get no warning whatsoever. The Highland and Islands fire brigade has no resources to deal with such an accident and has therefore called to an end to reprocessing at Dounreay.
Furthermore, Dounreay is touting for contracts in the United States, although Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate has not yet approved discharge reauthorisations, which have already been delayed for two years. When do the Government intend to publish the review currently being carried out? Will the Minister confirm that no contracts can be signed until those reauthorisations are approved? Ultimately, the decisions currently being taken will affect Scotland for the next 35 years, yet they are being taken by a management distrusted by the public and, in effect, by a foreign Government. That highlights the ultimate powerlessness of Scotland under the present regime.
The final part of our motion deals with Brent Spar, but expresses the same concerns that we raised about Beaufort dyke and reprocessing at Dounreay, and highlights our powerlessness under the present regime.
On 19 June, in his statement to the House after the G7 summit in Halifax, the Prime Minister told the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the proposition that Brent Spar
could have been taken inshore to be disposed of is incredible."—[Official Report, 19 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 28.]
However, since 1987, 914 platforms have been removed from the Gulf of Mexico and 13 from the North sea—including nine in the same depth range as the Brent Spar—to the shoreline. The same group of companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico removal own 140 of the 205 platforms in the North sea.
The industry has a wide range of experience in removal techniques and could help to revitalise the United Kingdom construction industry by utilising available skills and plant for the deconstruction of decommissioned platforms. At the heart of the Brent Spar controversy, I received phone calls from businesses in my constituency advising that they would be only too keen to be involved in such decommissioning.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the companies that she has just mentioned is currently seeking to persuade the Government of the sensibility of toppling the North-West Hutton platform on its side, in order to create a reef which will become rich with fish? Does she agree that that is a rationalisation and that toppling a structure is cheaper than bringing it ashore for dismantling?

Ms Cunningham: I was not aware of the specific instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I was aware that reef forming with such structures has been carried out in other parts of the globe and is one of the many things that can be done with such installations.
My party endorses the ministerial declaration of the fourth international conference on the protection of the North sea which states:
Even if the offshore installations are emptied of noxious and hazardous materials, they might still be, if dumped or left at sea, pose a threat to the marine environment. Disposal of such installations on land by recycling recyclable materials and by ensuring safe and controlled disposal of unavoidable residues would be in accordance with generally agreed principles of waste management policy.".
In contrast to the sensible approach outlined in that document, which the United Kingdom refused to sign, the Minister for Industry and Energy, the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) refused to rule out the disposal of the Brent Spar on 12 July, when he stated:
I would not rule out the option of deep sea dumping for the Brent Spar in future."—[Official Report, 12 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 935]
That has created a great deal of uncertainty, and the Government's position should be clarified.
It would be far better if the Government did as suggested in today's edition of the Financial Times and adopted a co-ordinated international approach to the removal of North sea installations rather than simply adopting a case-by-case one. According to the Financial Times, such a proposal would mean that £630 million could be saved by the Government and the oil industry.
It is that case-by-case, ad hoc, short-term approach which causes the greatest concern about all environmental issues. As a result, the SNP is demanding three courses of action in the motion before the House. First, we demand an urgent investigation into Beaufort dyke and the surrounding sea area, so that the dangers posed to the public and the marine environment can be properly assessed.
Secondly, we call on Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate to refuse to grant any further applications for discharge authorisations at the Dounreay plant. Thirdly, we urge the Government
to refuse any application for a licence for the offshore disposal of the Brent Spar or any other North Sea installation until such disposal can be assessed by an independent decommissioning authority".
Westminster has turned Scotland into the largest single underwater munitions dump in western Europe, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has said, Dounreay into the world's nuclear laundry. They would quite happily see 150 Brent Spar installations dumped in the North sea. The Scottish National party is today signalling that the days when Scotland gets every dangerous substance dumped on its doorstep while it is fleeced of its natural resources are coming to an end.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on their environmental achievements in Scotland and applauds their continued commitment to the further protection and enhancement of the environment, notably through the creation of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; supports the Government's view that United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority should be allowed to continue to undertake reprocessing of spent fuel, subject to the appropriate regulatory requirements being met, and that sound science and careful cost benefit analysis should continue to guide the Government in their consideration of issues affecting the marine environment, the matters of safety always to the fore.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on her lively and vigorous speech. It is only a pity that it bears little resemblance to reality. Her description of Scotland's environment is a travesty of the reality, and she should not let her enthusiasm for debate triumph over her respect for the truth.
It is pleasure to see that some members of the shadow Scottish affairs Front-Bench team are present, considering that none of them bothered to turn up last night for a debate of vital importance to Scotland's fishing industry. Their absence has been noted by the fishing communities and fishermen's organisations.
A visitor to north-west Europe would soon see Scotland as something of an environmental beacon.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As someone who was here last night, I can say that the Minister's comment about that debate has the modest disadvantage of being completely untrue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for me, but no doubt the Minister has taken note of it.

Mr. Robertson: I did not realise that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is a member of the shadow Scottish Front-Bench team.

Mr. Wilson: I am not.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is it not true that the Labour party's embarrassment is further deepened by the fact that, although it wants a Parliament in Edinburgh, its own Front Bench is comprised mostly of Scottish-based Scots, including its Chief Whip?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. I said that no member of the shadow Scottish Front-Bench team was present last night. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has admitted that he is not a member of it, so I hope that he will withdraw his remark at some appropriate moment.

Mr. Wilson: It is a simple matter. The Minister should learn that it is a waste of a speech to make such stupid, false points. It is a matter of fact that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. We should get on with the debate.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope it is not the same point of order.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister gave way to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a point of order; I did not realise that the Minister had given way.

Mr. Wilson: There is no need to apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take up time in the debate, but I do not want a straightforward, factual inaccuracy to remain on the record. For part of the time when I was present for the fisheries debate, the shadow Secretary of State was also present. The Minister made the same cheap point last night. It was not true then, it is not true now, and he should withdraw it.

Mr. Robertson: I will not withdraw my remark, and let us continue with the debate.
Scotland has an international reputation as an environmental beacon. I fear that the only problem is that the perennial parochialism of the SNP and its desire for cheap, quick soundbites create an extreme distortion of the current healthy situation.
I shall begin to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross by trying to put matters into context. There is no denying that the era of heavy industry, which was the foundation of Scotland's wealth for more than 100 years, has left a legacy of environmental problems. But the new, high-tech industries, which are fuelling Scotland's economic resurgence, are not major polluters.
Regulatory standards are tighter as a result of European Union and United Kingdom controls. Industry itself increasingly acknowledges the force of the green imperative and is now moving quite independently to give a higher priority to environmental management.

Dr. Godman: What stage have the negotiations with Ameco reached concerning the disposal of the Northwest Hutton platform? Is Ameco to be allowed to dump it at sea to form a reef as it claims, which is absolute nonsense, or will the Government, in accordance with part I of the


Petroleum Act 1987, insist that that installation be brought ashore or at least into sheltered waters where it can be dismantled?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman raises matters of commercial sensitivity between the company and the Department of Trade and Industry, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is made aware of them. The hon. Gentleman's points are primarily a matter for the DTI.
Industry increasingly acknowledges the force of the green imperative and is now moving quite independently to give a higher priority to environmental management. While we must still tackle problems from the past, we can at least look forward with real satisfaction to a much less polluted future.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross made great play of the prospect that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority may be in a position to secure further contracts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. It is unfortunate, if not surprising, that she did not praise the highly skilled staff of the facility, without whom such contracts would not be possible. She chooses instead to scaremonger; putting local employment at risk. Is she unaware that there are after all about 1,200 staff directly employed at the Dounreay site, plus 400 or so contractors? A further 250 jobs in the local economy can also be attributed to the plant.
The UKAEA has carried out reprocessing work for decades, and so long as it makes commercial sense for it to continue to do so, and the appropriate regulatory and safety requirements are being met, I see no reason why the Caithness area should be deprived of the benefit that such contracts would bring simply to satisfy the dogma and the narrow-mindedness of the SNP.
Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate will scrutinise fully and in great deal the application for authorisation made by the authority in respect of discharges of radioactive material from Dounreay. That scrutiny includes taking account of comments received from public bodies and local authorities consulted by HMIPI. A considerable amount of environmental monitoring has been and continues to be carried out around Dounreay, and that shows clearly that levels of radioactivity in the environment are well within internationally accepted limits for the public.
I am confident that the new Dounreay site management is dealing with that latter aspect with vigour and determination under the guidance of regulatory bodies. Indeed, the determination of the present management to ensure that all such localised contamination is fully identified and dealt with openly has brought about a great deal of the recent criticism made of operations on the nuclear site.
Similarly, we should not forget that the recent comments about Dounreay's operations made by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment are made by Committees set up by the Government to provide such independent advice and criticism, precisely in order that the operation of the nuclear industry in this country may be to the very highest of standards and so that the public may be reassured of that.
As for the transport of spent materials testing reactor fuel to Dounreay, were the United States contracts to come about, there is a history of safe operation and transportation to build on. I am amazed by the short memories of Opposition Members. Dounreay has been receiving such spent fuel elements for more than 35 years since the reprocessing plant opened in the 1950s. Why can the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross not come to this debate and congratulate the work force on their skills, expertise and safety record over decades, rather than seeking to destroy their livelihoods in search of a quick headline in tomorrow's paper?
I am deeply conscious of the concern about the phosphorous containers washed ashore in south-west Scotland and about the safety aspects to which the incident gives rise. The injury that at least one child sustained is most regrettable, and I convey my sympathies to him.
Unfortunate as the incident is, I record my high regard for the way in which the emergency services have handled the incident. Efforts are continuing to try to find the origin of the containers and where in the sea bed they came from. The video of the trench-laying operation will be studied carefully to establish whether it reveals any connection with munitions, if that is what the phosphorous objects turn out to be. Through the Scottish Office's initiative, all the appropriate Government Departments are working together, not only to try to get to the bottom of the incident, but to establish as much as possible about what munitions were dumped.

Mr. Foulkes: I endorse what the Minister has said about the emergency services; they worked extremely well. I cannot, however, say the same about Government Departments because over the past two weeks, there seems to have been a concerted attempt to cover up exactly what is going on. We were not told by the Secretary of State for Defence that there was a prohibition order, and British Gas did not tell us. The Ministry is still not answering questions about why the order was imposed and why it was lifted.
On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I have written seeking an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because all fingers point in his direction. The Health and Safety Executive is clearly responsible and is under his control. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will use his good offices to get us an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to try to solve the mystery of what exactly is going on in and around Beaufort dyke.

Mr. Robertson: I know of no cover-up. What I do know is that the hon. Gentleman had what he called a constructive meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Following from that meeting, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking to move matters forward. As I said, through the Scottish Office's own initiative, all the appropriate Government Departments are working together to try to get to the bottom of the incident. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's request for a further meeting with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friends and myself said that we had a successful meeting because we thought that we were


being told the truth. It emerged afterwards that it was being withheld from us that the Secretary of State for Defence knew that there was a prohibition order and that there was trouble at Beaufort dyke. He did not tell us about that and neither did Cedric Brown.
That was an appalling cover-up of what was going on; that is why a lot of us are now suspicious that a cover-up is still going on and that there are dangers at Beaufort dyke to which the Government are not prepared to admit. That is why we need a meeting urgently.

Mr. Robertson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is, by his own intervention, admitting that this is a matter that crosses many Government Departments. I have said that, following the hon. Gentleman's meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking to move things forward. I will ensure that he sees this exchange of views.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Many of us were present at the meetings and we were an all-party delegation. I confirm everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Why is it only now, some several weeks on from the first indication, that the Scottish Office is talking about co-ordination? Can the Minister tell us who will be working on the group, exactly what its role will be, to whom it will report, how we shall find out the information, how we shall report back to our constituents and what the time scale is?

Mr. Robertson: As I have said to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the local Member of Parliament, this is a matter that crosses Government Departments. Following the meetings that he and others, including the hon. Lady, have had, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking to take matters forward. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland winds up, he will address the hon. Lady's question in greater detail. I now want to make some progress.
I now turn to the Government's achievements, as spelled out in our amendment, and our ambitions for Scotland's special and unique environment. So far, the 1990s have been an outstanding decade for our leading-edge policies to protect and to enhance the environment. The decade began with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, by any standards, represents a post-war landmark in pollution control legislation.
The Act's centrepiece has been the introduction of integrated pollution control—IPC—for the most potentially polluting industrial processes. This has undoubtedly set a benchmark for the rest of Europe. As a pollution control concept it was world class and the regime that we established in Britain had the immediate effect of persuading the European Commission that it should follow suit. Accordingly, an integrated prevention and pollution control directive—the IPPC—was agreed by the Council of Ministers earlier this year, and will follow very much the same trail as that blazed by the 1990 Act.
IPC finally brought to an end the separate regimes of pollution control that had applied to each of the environmental media—land, air and water. It has therefore heralded an era of greater coherence and more thoughtful analysis of the possible harmful discharges from industrial processes, compared with what was previously a rather fragmented area of operations.
Nor was IPC the only feather in the cap of the 1990 Act. For the first time, air emissions from less polluting industrial processes were brought within a tight regime of codified guidance notes in place of the ad hoc controls that had previously applied.
Waste management controls have also been greatly strengthened. Indeed, because of the extent of the reforms embodied, implementation has been phased over two or more years, and the final tranche of the new waste licensing controls did not come into force until May last year. The 1990 Act also strengthened litter laws, with clear output targets for local authorities.
The emphasis in that legislation was on the substance of pollution control, but the focus has shifted in subsequent years to the organisational aspects of securing on the ground the objectives set out in the Act.
The first fruit of that determination was the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, which brought together the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland in the shape of a new and powerful body—Scottish Natural Heritage. That body has now settled down to the twin task of reconciling conservation with recreation, and is proving its worth across the entire spectrum of countryside policies. In particular, it has been able to secure a shift in the general climate of opinion towards achieving a much more constructive dialogue between landowners and conservation interests, putting aside the divisive debates of earlier years.
The current Session of Parliament has seen the passage of another major Act with far-reaching provisions. I have no doubt that the effect of the Environment Act 1995 will be felt well into the next century, and I understand that its 394 pages make it the longest piece of legislation passed by Parliament this decade.
The most striking impact for Scotland will probably arise from the creation of a Scottish Environment Protection Agency—SEPA. It is fitting that we should discuss the environment today, because 24 October is the day on which the board of the new agency meets formally for the first time.
The effective protection of the environment requires an integrated, holistic approach. The introduction of IPC—and IPPC in Europe—is an acknowledgement of that fact. SEPA will take that integration a stage further. The agency will concentrate on the key forms of industrial pollution of air, water and land where the benefits of a one-door approach to the prevention and control of pollution will deliver more effective environmental protection.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene; my question will allow him to catch his breath, because he is speaking at such a speed. Following the correspondence that I have had with the Scottish Office, does what the Minister now says mean that the operation to deal with the mercury from the former Nobel works in Redding, Falkirk, which is washing into the Forth and Clyde canal, where people still fish, will be funded by the agency? Or will the people of my constituency still have to pay through their taxes to the local council for cleaning up Government pollution?

Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a little more patiently, I would have reached the funding of the body.
From 1 April next year, SEPA will bring together the work of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate, the various river purification authorities and the district and islands councils in respect of waste regulation and some air pollution control. It will be a formidable organisation with about 600 staff and an annual budget of more than £22 million. Its functions will encompass the control of radioactive substances, discharges to controlled waters, air pollution, flood warnings and waste management, to mention but a few.
The Environment Act also tackles one of the legacies of Scotland's industrial past that I mentioned earlier. It provides a new framework for the remediation of contaminated land sites based on the "suitable for use" approach. That resists the temptation to throw money at every conceivable area of contamination regardless of the benefit that it would bring. Instead, it proposes a selective approach concentrating on remediation programmes on sites posing the greatest environmental risks or the greatest potential for reuse.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister has described the environmental agency as being under Scottish Office control. However, does he have any real power in connection with the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? The munitions dump off the south-west of Scotland was put there by the Ministry of Defence. Nuclear waste transportation is under the control of the Department of Transport. Dounreay and its regulatory bodies are under the control of the Department of Trade and Industry, as is the disposal of offshore platforms. The simple question is: does the Scottish Office really have effective power to deal with the concerns that my hon. Friend raised, even if the Minister wanted to tackle them?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Scottish Office has a powerful voice on every issue that he has just mentioned as an integral part of the Government of the United Kingdom. He should know better.
The Environment Act also has important enabling powers to combat air pollution. Even though we have made great strides in the decades since the Clean Air Acts of the 1950s and 1960s, first to reduce air pollution from domestic fires and then from industry, we now find that a third threat to our air quality has emerged in the form of exhaust fumes from road transport.
The Act addresses this development by enabling air quality management areas to be set up in localities where air quality is particularly poor. As a backcloth to such local initiatives, the Government will publish an air quality strategy to outline the national policies which apply in this important area. The Government will also be discussing with local authorities the range of measures which they might apply to make the AQMAs really effective in improving air quality. We will give them new powers where they are shown to be necessary.
There is not enough time to go through the other provisions of the 1995 Act, but I believe that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to environmental improvement and have proved their ability to come up with appropriate policies to meet the changing challenges of our time.
I should like to turn to the wider environmental debate in the country. I detect behind the hon Lady's remarks a kind of moral absolutism, which I believe we must resist if the cause of environmental improvement is not to lose credibility in the minds of the community at large. The clamour from the green corner is all too often for the environment to be returned to its natural condition of pristine purity, regardless of the actual benefits of doing so and regardless of the costs involved.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Lady. I sometimes feel that these calls are part of a flight from reality to a never-never land of simple truths and instant values, and we must all resist that pressure. The first fallacy is that nature is always a benign and beneficial force. As any scientist knows, harmful chemicals abound in the natural environment and naturally occurring radiation almost certainly poses a greater threat to health than radioactivity from nuclear operations.
Undoubtedly we must be careful and considerate in our treatment of the environment, but we must also be alive to the law of diminishing returns. The expenditure to clean up that last trace of pollution in the remaining residue of waste material is likely to be much better spent for the benefit of humanity in many other ways. Yet one hesitates to say anything that obvious in polite society, lest it offends the gospel according to the greens which we are all increasingly expected to acknowledge.
That inevitably brings me to the saga of Brent Spar. Shell undertook a very full assessment of the disposal options, and deep-sea abandonment was the conclusive outcome. The Government's licence to dispose of Brent Spar in this way was granted only after the most careful scientific evaluation by Scotland's foremost marine laboratory in Aberdeen.
The wisdom of those decisions has, of course, been totally vindicated now with the publication of the Det Norske Veritas study. The study demonstrates that Shell had been right all along and that Greenpeace's discreditable manoeuvring has served both to mislead the general public and to leave Brent Spar as a potential threat to the marine environment until it is finally disposed of. It is as regrettable as it is pathetic that the hon. Lady and her party fell in with the Greenpeace line in such an unquestioning and uncritical fashion. I had hoped that she would come to the debate today with her lesson learned—unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case.
That brings me to a matter which I ought perhaps to have mentioned earlier and which certainly looms alongside domestic reforms to improve environmental protection, and indeed overshadows and dwarfs them in many respects—the concept of sustainable development. This was endorsed at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. To my mind, the concept adds the vital ballast of economic realism to counter what can be the sentimentality of those who constantly see the world through green-tinted spectacles. The importance of development in the concept is crucial because as a society and as a planet we need to grow and innovate if we are to progress. Over-caution will lead to stagnation, and that can cast a blight over millions where growth and innovation can give them hope.
The Rio document which set out the many aspirations for sustainable development is called Agenda 21, and it carries the salutary lesson for us all that top-down


solutions—so beloved of Opposition parties—are not the answer. The seedcorn of change lies in our local communities, in our schools and at the workplace. Exhortation from on high, whether from Governments or the moral crusaders in the green movement, cannot actually achieve the shifts in life style and patterns of behaviour which sustainable development asks of us. Agenda 21 recognises this by calling for the full participation of all segments of society. This will not be an easy process, nor a swift one.
However, the Government are determined to play their part. The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 was the first piece of UK legislation to make specific reference to the concept of sustainability. The Environment Act provides for the Secretary of State to provide guidance on sustainable development to SEPA so that the general aims of Agenda 21 can be reflected in the day-to-day work of that agency. In reality, of course, the very practice of pollution control is at the heart of sustainable development.
We have established a separate Scottish advisory group on sustainable development which has already issued a thoughtful report on transport and the environment. We have commissioned a survey of Scottish attitudes to sustainable development, which was published last year. We have supported the Association of Scottish Community Councils to give local Agenda 21 a higher profile. On the environment, as on so much more, the Government are leading the way. Our record is second to none. I invite the House to reject the scaremongering and political posturing of the SNP. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. John McAllion: I do not know about green-tinted spectacles, but no Opposition Member will be green with envy of the quality of the speech that we have just heard from the Minister.
I rise in my place as a Scottish-born and Scottish-based member of the Scottish Labour party to speak from the Scottish Labour party's Front Bench. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seemed to believe that those qualities were something of a disadvantage, but I am proud of them. I am also proud of the role that my party is playing in securing a Scottish parliament, which will be created after Labour's victory at the next general election. We shall make debates such as this in this House unnecessary. In future, such matters will be debated in Scotland, where they should be debated, by elected Members of a Scottish parliament.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on introducing this important debate. Labour Members agree that there is genuine concern across Scotland about what the motion describes as the
Government's failure to provide proper stewardship of Scotland's environment.
We disagree with the SNP that concern about the Government's poor record on environmental issues is a matter simply for the Scottish electorate. That concern is shared by the vast majority of people who inhabit this small offshore island.
Indeed, the concern is shared beyond the shores of this island in the wider world. The Government's repeated refusal to condemn the French nuclear tests in the south Pacific have made them moral outcasts among civilised opinion in the world—and deservedly so.
Today's debate is about Scotland and what the motion describes as the triple threat posed by reprocessing at Dounreay, leaking munitions from Beaufort dyke dump and decommissioning of oil rigs in the North sea. I shall deal with each issue in turn and in the order in which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross did so.
The motion refers to 1,000 phosphorous devices that have been washed up on the south-west coast of Scotland. They are sometimes referred to as flares, but experts now believe them to be incendiary bombs. The Royal Navy's description of the devices is chilling. Any hon. Member who has not read it would be well advised to do so. It refers to the devices exuding a distinctive pungent smell, their being seen smoking on the shores of Scotland and their ability spontaneously to combust when they are dry. The Clyde coastguard has gone further and said that the devices have the potential to kill. So all hon. Members should be worried about the extent of the munitions being washed up on our beaches.
Youngsters are already picking up the devices—one did so and his clothes started to smoke. He sustained injuries to his arms and legs that required him to be taken to hospital. The devices are very dangerous indeed. The Government's slow reaction to the danger presented to the Scottish people by such devices is amazing.
If the Government do not care about today's children—they cannot vote in the coming general election and save the Government's necks—or about tomorrow's environment, perhaps they should at least be worried about the threat that the devices pose to Scotland's economy. A threat arises from the impact of publicity about the devices on the tourist trade in Scotland.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I go along with all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the hazards associated with the phosphorous sticks, but what evidence does he have to substantiate his comment that the Government have not taken a keen interest ever since the first sticks were washed ashore? I have evidence that the Scottish Minister with responsibility for the environment was aware and involved right from that time.

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear what evidence I have to substantiate my claim. For the moment, I am talking about the impact that the bad publicity is having on potential tourism to our coasts, which are famous for their marine environment and which attract visitors.
I am grateful for a briefing that was provided to Scottish Members by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It revealed that millions of pounds were pumped into coastal local economies by visitors. A Countryside Commission for Scotland survey of users of the south-west coast path revealed that in the past year almost £16 million was spent in the local economy by people attracted to the area by the environmental qualities of the south-west of Scotland.
Whether one looks at the problem on safety, environmental or economic grounds, one thing is clear: the Government should make it a priority to preserve the quality of our coastal and marine environment. Yet what did we find when the story first broke and the issue became a crisis in Scotland? One of the headlines in the Scottish press at the time simply read:
Offices pass buck as munitions wash up on Scottish coastline.


The Ministry of Defence said that the matter was not its responsibility but that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. MAFF said that the matter was not its responsibility but that of the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Office. No less than a spokesperson for the dynamic new Secretary of State for Scotland was quoted as saying that the Secretary of State did not feel it appropriate to comment on the devices. They all washed their hands of any responsibility for what was happening on the south-west coast of Scotland. They were all utterly clueless about what they could do about it.
We hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that the Department of Trade and Industry hid from its responsibility in the matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Would the hon. Gentleman have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland comment on something before he was fully aware of exactly what he was talking about? This is a complex issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that and that significant effort has been made by many people to determine where the items have come from and to ascertain how to stop them.

Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to come to the assistance of the Minister who is leading for the Government in the debate. The spokesperson for the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was not appropriate for him to comment, not that he did not want to comment because he had not checked out the matter. The spokesperson said that it was nothing to do with the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is why the Secretary of State will rightly be condemned by people.
Were it not for the successful campaigning by my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who demanded Government action, an immediate investigation into the source of the munitions and the extent and nature of the munitions held at the Beaufort dyke dump and a halt to all undersea operations in the area, I suspect that Ministers would still be dithering and doing nothing. Only after my hon. Friends' intervention did the Ministry of Defence agree at last to meet them, and only then did the Secretary of State for Scotland decide to intervene in the affair and try to rescue something from it.
It was not just here in Westminster that the Labour party forced the Government into action. A Labour Member of the European Parliament, Alex Smith, took emergency action in the European Parliament and succeeded in persuading the European Commission to investigate the munitions dump at Beaufort dyke and the claims that radioactive waste was dumped secretly in the area.
That is the story of what happened at Beaufort dyke—Labour action to protect the public and the environment, but Government inaction and failure to defend the public interest until they were forced into action by Opposition spokesmen.

Mr. Bill Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, because everyone who has taken an interest in the matter is concerned. He must acknowledge, however,

that Beaufort dyke has been used extensively for the dumping of wartime munitions under Governments of different colours. Accountability, therefore, lies with the people who decided to dump.

Mr. McAllion: Accountability for action today lies with this Government and the Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench. Clearly, they have failed to take action, for which they will be condemned not merely by the Opposition but by people who are interested in the subject throughout Scotland.
The second part of the motion refers to Scotland's nuclear industry. I must begin with a confession. I am not in the habit of reading Scottish National party election manifestos—a failure that I think I share with the vast majority of the Scottish people. Indeed, if we are honest, it is probably a failure that I share with the majority of members of the SNP, as you would realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you had ever taken part in a debate with them.
In preparation for this debate, however, I took the trouble to look up the SNP manifesto for the last election to find out what it said about the Scottish nuclear industry. Page 10 makes it very clear that the SNP would pledge itself to creating
A Scotland without the nuclear menace.
That phrase is obviously similar to one used last weekend by Mr. Kenny McAskill, a senior member of the SNP, who said that only the SNP could deliver a nuclear-free Scotland.
A nuclear-free Scotland and a Scotland without nuclear menace are good slogans, with a certain ring to them. They may even be attractive to certain people, but they are entirely bogus, as I hope to show. They provide the background, however, against which the references to Dounreay in the motion should be judged. It is important for the House to understand that the references stem from the wider SNP attitude to the nuclear industry and nuclear power in Scotland.
The facts about Scotland's nuclear industry must be revealed before we can judge the references to Dounreay. For example, Scottish Nuclear has signed contracts with British Nuclear Fuels this year for the handling of Scotland's nuclear waste, which will cover the period between now and 2068 and are worth about £4,000 million in total. Of course, we do not have the details of the contracts because BNFL and Scottish Nuclear keep them well hidden, but we can be fairly certain that severe penalty clauses will be included if anyone should decide to tear up the contracts and break the agreements entered into by the two parties.
Under the contracts, Scotland's nuclear waste is to be transported not to Dounreay but to Sellafield in England, where some of it will be reprocessed, but most will be stored, either in wet storage or long-term surface storage. The SNP objects to the possibility of Dounreay being used as a dumping site for nuclear waste from other countries.
We heard from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Perth and Kinross that they are equally concerned about England's nuclear future and would object to Sellafield being used as a nuclear dustbin for Scotland's waste. We must assume, therefore, that, if they were ever in a position to do anything about it, they would tear up the contracts and be obliged to compensate BNFL for its loss in full—an enormous cost to the Scottish taxpayer—and that they would agree to the repatriation of Scotland's nuclear waste to Scotland,


where it would be stored in sites throughout the country. A Scotland littered with nuclear sites of that type could hardly be described as nuclear-free, but no one has ever accused the SNP of being honest.
The SNP plan goes further, however, as it proposes to close down all Scotland's nuclear industry—not merely Hunterston A, which is being decommissioned by Scottish Nuclear, but Hunterston B, Torness, Chapelcross and Dounreay, which will all need to be decommissioned at huge cost to the Scottish taxpayer and will require huge amounts of radioactive material to be stored and disposed of.

Mr. Salmond: On the subject of honesty, will the hon. Gentleman give the House the precise date on which he came to believe that the Trident nuclear system should be supported?

Mr. McAllion: That shows the hon. Gentleman's desperation. Rather than answering questions on civil nuclear power, he mentions defence, which is not part of this debate. He will have to suffer in silence a wee while longer because I intend to continue exposing the bogus nature of the SNP's policy on the civil nuclear industry.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said that there would be no difficulties in closing down Scotland's nuclear industry and switching to non-nuclear power systems. Perhaps I might refer her to the problems associated with Hunterston A and Chapelcross, which both have Magnox reactors. The hon. Lady quoted, with great approval, the words of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, but it pointed out that spent Magnox fuel is potentially unstable and, on safety grounds, should be reprocessed before being disposed of.
Yet the hon. Lady and the SNP are promising to ban reprocessing at Dounreay and have made it clear that they will not have anything to do with reprocessing at Sellafield, which will make it impossible to deal safely with the spent fuel rods from existing Magnox reactors in Scotland. It seems strange for a party that talks about creating a safe Scotland to take decisions that make it impossible for us to dispose safely of Magnox fuel rods from reactors in Scotland.
At its most recent conference in Perth, the SNP decided that Scotland's nuclear industry would be retained only until it could be decommissioned safely. I am not entirely certain what that means and at what point all the nuclear stations would be decommissioned. We know that Hunterston A is already well down the road. The reactors have been defuelled, the ancillary reactor plant has been dismantled, the fuel storage ponds have been cleaned up and all that remains is to remove the reactor core, once radiation levels decrease significantly and it is safe to do so. British Nuclear Fuels estimates that that might be in about 100 years' time, so the SNP has a wide time span in which to decide when it will decommission Scotland's nuclear plant. Perhaps it should invent a new slogan, "Scotland nuclear-free by 2093", but that suggestion might not appeal to some SNP members.
It is incumbent on SNP Members to let the House and the people of Scotland know exactly when they will decommission and write off Scotland's nuclear stations. We must recognise one thing, however: that it is simply no longer credible for us to deal with complex nuclear issues on the basis of simplistic sloganising. The 4,500 workers in the Scottish nuclear industry and the many thousands more in the spin-off industries deserve a little

more respect and consideration from that party. Indeed, the SNP did not touch on the most immediate threat to the Scottish nuclear industry—privatisation, which will definitely threaten safety standards in the industry. It is not merely the official Opposition who are saying so. Even the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is about to say so.

Mr. Gallie: Has the hon. Gentleman not read recent reports from Scottish Power, stating that its safety performance has increased beyond all recognition from the days when it was in the public sector? On that basis, will he take back his words about the privatisation of the nuclear industry?

Mr. McAllion: Has the hon. Gentleman not read the comments of Mr. Richard Killick, who is saying what I said? He may not know who he is. Mr. Killick admits that he is not a political animal because he admits to voting Tory more than anything else, but he served for 25 years in the Royal Navy and held all the top safety posts on nuclear submarines. On retiring, he joined Scottish Nuclear and, in 1992, was appointed safety and quality director, so I think that we can take it that he knows something about the nuclear industry and about safety standards within it. Yet, following the merger of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric into British Energy, he was invited to leave the company. Within a week, he was obliged to clear his desk and to pass on his safety responsibilities to a fellow director from Scottish Nuclear.
Mr. Killick said that the speed with which he was asked to pass on his safety responsibilities alarmed him and was symptomatic of "the fundamental flaw" in the privatisation of the nuclear industry. He claimed:
There will be increasing pressures on people and safety as output and profit become ever more important".
That will not happen immediately—not in the first two or three years following privatisation—but in the longer term. As Mr. Killick puts it so chillingly, the Government
are building in latent instability".
Given the threat posed by a nuclear industry that is inherently unstable, the charge against the Government could not be more damning or serious. For the sake of a privatisation receipt, which they hope will allow them to introduce tax cuts and increase their electability at the next general election, they are prepared to put at risk the safety of the entire nuclear industry and, indeed, of the people of Scotland, whose interests they claim to be looking after.
Finally, there is the dumping of North sea oil rigs. The Scottish National party has never been able to allow a bandwagon to pass without trying to jump on it. It has done so again by trying to hijack Brent Spar for its own political ends. There has been a deluge of press releases from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan, for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Perth and Kinross opposing deep-sea dumping of any sort in the North sea. We hear that the Government and oil companies cannot be allowed to dump rigs in the North sea. We are told that Scotland gets all the dangers and few of the rewards. Today, the SNP has again highlighted the benefits that the total removal of rigs from the North sea and recycling them on land would bring through the jobs that the process would create.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross went so far as to condemn the Government for adopting a case-by-case approach. That is all very well, but it is a different line


from that taken by the Energy Select Committee in its 1991 report, "Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Fields in the North Sea".
It is nothing strange for the SNP to be at odds with the Energy Select Committee; it is strange that a member of that Select Committee was the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who as part of the Committee, agreed to commend the Government for their case-by-case approach to the North sea. He also agreed that, on balance, environmental interests favoured the partial abandonment of at least some rigs, that environmental issues could not be used as an argument against deep-sea dumping of rigs and called on the Government to examine the claim that total removal was more dangerous than partial removal because of the dangers that it posed to the divers who would carry out the process. He even agreed that the Government would have to consider the possibility of using abandoned platforms as artificial reefs to encourage fish stocks. Finally, he agreed that the Government should preserve the options of toppling and deep-water dumping while permitted to do so by International Maritime Organisation guidelines.
I have no complaint with the hon. Gentleman agreeing to all that, because I was a member of the same Committee and agreed to it myself, but when the SNP starts to deal with such matters, it should do so responsibly, seriously and with due consideration of the scientific and environmental facts and not treat the debate as if it was something to read about in a tabloid such as The Sun. The issue deserves better than that.
Reference was made to the gulf of Mexico, where 945 rigs were moved on shore for recycling. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, however, that 100 platforms in the gulf of Mexico, belonging to 36 companies, have already been dumped at sea as part of the rigs-to-reefs programme, which has been running for the past 10 years. It is a good programme which has many qualities so far lacking in what has been suggested by the Government. For example, all pollutants and hydrocarbons must be removed before a platform can be considered for disposal. Half the cost savings that arise from not having to dump rigs on land must be handed over to state Governments for long-term monitoring and research into the effects of dumping on marine life.
The programme is supported by local fishermen and environmentalists in America, and even Greenpeace in America does not oppose it. It is at least worth considering.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has been busy reading the Scottish National party manifesto; it is a pity that he did not read the motion on the Order Paper. Does he not agree that the key issue is that the oil companies and the Government, because of taxation laws, have a vested interest in the cheapest form of disposal, which is often offshore disposal? Can he not bring himself to agree that we need an independent authority with no financial vested interests properly to supervise disposal?

Mr. McAllion: I have no problem agreeing with that, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman giving only one side of the argument and trying to disguise from the House the positions that he took some years ago. With complete inconsistency, he is about-facing on those positions and not owning up to it.
I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to deal with such important matters seriously and not use them as part of the usual knockabout stuff of party politics. We are talking about future generations. The document that Labour commissioned on environment policy states:
We cannot go on living as if there were no tomorrow.
I would advise every political party to take that phrase to heart, because the tomorrow that we are discussing does not belong to the generation sitting here at the moment but to the generations that will come after us. We are not debating our future and environment but those of generations to come. They deserve a debate worthy of them, and they have not heard that from the SNP today.

Sir Hector Monro: I wish to bring some realism to the debate instead of the rhetoric that we have heard so far.
We are, of course, concerned about what has happened in the Irish sea and the firth of Clyde. That needs to be—and is being—investigated. Until we get the results of the investigation, it is pointless to raise alarm and despondency before we find out what the true picture is.
We have to be practical. If there are problems in the Beaufort dyke hundreds of fathoms down, we have to find out whether the munitions are inert and whether there is any cause for concern. If there is, we must consider what on earth could be done about it, bearing in mind that nothing has happened for about 40 years. I suspect too, that the incendiaries and the possible flares in the firth of Clyde are from a different source altogether. It just happens that they have come together in public concern.
We should say to the Government that, yes, we want to know the results of investigation as soon as possible, but it is no use shouting from the rooftops until the experts have found what the position is. The sooner that that can be done, the better.
It is quite wrong of the Scottish National party to keep thumping away about toppling the Brent Spar in the North sea. We have never intended that any oil wells should be toppled in the North sea because it is far shallower than the Atlantic, where the Brent Spar might have been toppled. That is a different issue altogether.
Without in any way underestimating the Beaufort dyke question, I wish to deal with some more important long-term issues. We can say straight away that the Scottish National party is dead against nuclear power. Its candidates and members have been dead against it ever since the power stations appeared in Scotland after the war.
I live alongside Chapelcross; I brought up a family alongside it. I have no fears at all about the safety of living near a nuclear power station. The standards of the work force, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive are extremely high. There is never any concern about safety in the area. Chapelcross provides 500 jobs. Think of the input that that makes to the local economy through the 500 families.
I cannot understand the concern of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), who is not in her place—I appreciate that she cannot be there all the time—about transport. Nuclear flasks have been transported between Sellafield and Chapelcross for


40 years. I cannot understand the worry about transporting nuclear equipment under the closest security and scrutiny. It is absolutely safe.
The thought that these flasks are going to catch fire on the road in central Scotland is unjustified. Again, the SNP and, indeed, others are raising alarms about an issue that is a non-runner. Perhaps hon. Members saw the television programme that showed a train crashing at high speed into a nuclear flask. The nuclear flask came off best. It is a safe form of transportation. Nobody could want it to be safer more than the nuclear industry.
It is wrong to say tat we cannot effectively generate electricity from nuclear power or carry out reprocessing at Dounreay or elsewhere; our country has taken safety as its No. 1 priority. I believe that not only the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority but British Nuclear Fuels, which runs Chapelcross, and Scottish Nuclear, which runs its own stations, will keep their high standards as their top priority.
I am concerned about the long-term future of Chapelcross. I want it to continue. I am glad that, subject to safety checks, its future looks guaranteed for at least another 10 years. That is not on account of any support that we have had nationally from the Labour party, the SNP or the Liberal Democrats. I know that local candidates sometimes put a smudge on it, but, by and large, listening to the party conferences, I believe that there is no doubt that the other parties would support the future development of nuclear power.
I should like to be positive in this debate. The motion on the Order Paper must be one of the longest sentences ever composed. It contains the phrase:
Government's failure to provide proper stewardship of Scotland's environment.
The Scottish National party must be completely out of touch with what is actually happening in Scotland. A great deal of progress has been made. The Minister made the case for Scottish Natural Heritage; the Government combined the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, of which I was a member for nine years, and the Countryside Commission for Scotland into Scottish Natural Heritage—precisely to develop the environment and heritage of Scotland. It has been extremely successful, and we should congratulate Magnus Magnusson on his good work.
We have also enhanced the value of Scotland's sites of special scientific interest. It is rubbish to claim, as some organisations do, that we are destroying SSSIs. Only a tiny percentage—one or two out of 3,000—get damaged from time to time, and that is only inevitable. By and large, the standards set by SNH in promoting and improving the environment, habitats, wildlife and heritage of Scotland are first class. We have also set up the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as an additional safeguard, to be up and running by next April, to deal with river pollution and sewage—an outstandingly serious issue in Scotland about which local authorities have done too little for too long.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his meeting with me in Glasgow about chromium toxic waste sites in Rutherglen, when he committed the Government in principle to doing something about those sites and expressed great and genuine concern about them? Does he further agree that

that commitment has not been honoured by his successors, who have repeatedly said that they will not provide the resources to make the sites safe?

Sir Hector Monro: I cannot say what has happened, but I well remember the hon. Gentleman coming to see me and the wish that I expressed that we could resolve the matter, which involved the regional and district councils and the enterprise company, all of which have a part to play in developing the site and removing the contamination about which he and I were rightly worried. I am sure that when he speaks in the debate he will express the strength of his feelings and try to encourage a more rapid solution.
It is most important to support the Government's policies in respect of agriculture, because, if we are to have a beautiful Scotland, with high standards of husbandry and great scenic beauty, we need profitable agriculture. That requires, in turn, support for our policies from Europe, and support for the farming community. That is essential if we are to raise environmental standards in Scotland. I believe that it is already happening; we are putting money where it matters.
We have developed the environmentally sensitive areas and management agreements, and we have helped farmers to farm more sensitively. We have put additional money into the less-favoured areas, particularly hill farming. All these factors contribute to improving the environment. We have introduced special conservation areas, under the habitats directive. Environmental grants are channelled through the wildlife advisory groups. We have promoted forestry and brought in woodland grants. Now that the forestry review is over, I hope that things will settle down, with the forestry authority and Forestry Enterprise in place, providing greater opportunities for access to the woodlands of Scotland.
We set up the Cairngorm partnership, after extensive consultation. David Laird is the chairman presiding over positive co-operation in the Cairngorm area. I hope that it will help to develop the ski areas of Aviemore, as well as the wilder areas in that part of Scotland.
We were also keen to develop the same sort of partnership for the Loch Lomond area. The investigation has been conducted and the report drawn up. The new councils that will come into existence next April will, I hope, get together on this matter. They have the additional powers that they need, but they must also see it as their duty and responsibility to develop opportunities around Loch Lomond, and not just leave it to the Government to bring in new legislation. They can do the task themselves.
The SNP motion also contains the phrase:
without any semblance of public consultation".
What on earth was the SNP doing this summer? Did it not play its part in responding to the consultation document preceding the White Paper? Everyone in Scotland has been asked to submit ideas. When the White Paper is issued shortly, I hope to see that the SNP has fed in positive ideas. Its members cannot say that they were not consulted; probably no White Paper has ever been prepared more thoroughly than the one in the pipeline for Scotland. Claiming a lack of public consultation just shows how out of touch the SNP is with Scottish thinking—

Mrs. Ewing: We keep winning elections.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Lady looks very lonely sitting there on the Bench all by herself.


The forthcoming White Paper will highlight the development of rural communities, and that means everything in the countryside, including village shops and post offices.
We are therefore guided by good policies and by the principles of sustainable development and shared development, working with local people, who know better how to identify their own needs and find the best way forward. Local planning requires flexibility—if we are to develop farm buildings for alternative uses, for instance. We need imaginative planning, too.
At this point, I again put down a marker, well known in the Scottish Office and to many other people as well: I refer to my outright disagreement with wind farms. We cannot improve Scotland's scenic beauty at the same time as building wind farms. I know that we have a duty to find renewable energy sources, but it is difficult to justify erecting up to 20 wind farm propellers, given the desecration of the countryside that ensues and the small generating capacity of the plant. I hope that the planning authorities will be very strict when it comes to locating wind farms in Scotland.
There are too many other objective to mention today—housing, crime, rural transport and unleaded petrol, on which we have taken a lead. Our environmental policies are prominent in Europe and the world. We intend to conserve our natural assets. We will reverse any decline in wildlife. I do not have the time today to give the Red Deer Commission a pat on the back for its work to contain the deer herd in Scotland. We must maintain the diversity of our rural landscapes and remain determined to prevent environmental damage, especially to our green belt. We must not ease up in our commitment to retain it around our cities.
We must also provide people with opportunities to enjoy the countryside for recreational pursuits, offering them reasonable and responsible access. Everyone must have the right to enjoy Scotland without overstepping the mark, as a few foolish people tend to do. We can thus proceed, with good stewardship and a practical knowledge of Scotland, to make it even more attractive for the future.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I congratulate the Scottish National party on initiating the debate, and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on her speech. I have no hesitation about doing that; as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, we should approach this subject on a non-party basis.
I should like to pursue a point made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who mentioned the industrial legacy that has been left in the west of Scotland, particularly in the central belt, as a result of the industrial revolution. The position in my constituency is similar to that in Dumfries. A chemical-producing company, Whites, operated in the Rutherglen area for around 150 years. During that time, the factory dumped its chromium waste not only all over Cambuslang and Rutherglen but over a wide area of south and south-east Glasgow.
Folk did not realise at the time the damage that can be done by such waste. I was born and brought up just a couple of hundred yards from that factory and used to play in the streams and the burns adjacent to it, despite the fact that the burn ran all sorts of colours as a result of the chemicals dumped in it. One did not realise the dangers at the time; it was only in later years that one realised the environmental mess that the place was in.
That company was castigated by no less than Keir Hardie around the turn of the century for its working practices and cavalier attitude towards the safety and environmental conditions in which the workers did their trade. My own knowledge of that company is further enhanced by the fact that my grandfather, four uncles, numerous cousins and my own brother worked there. It got to the stage in that factory where workers had chromium holes burnt into their skin through working with the chromium waste, which eventually was dumped all over Cambuslang and Rutherglen.
Eventually, the company moved away from Rutherglen and ended up out of business. I have tried to pursue its legal responsibilities and liabilities but am advised by legal opinion that there is no way in which I can do so. It has left a legacy in my constituency, and in adjacent constituencies, of chromium waste sites, which are now fenced off and barred to the public, with signs on them, saying, "Danger. Keep Out." These are not small, isolated sites; they are sites on which houses are built, and community halls and large secondary schools are built adjacent to them. There is a host of such sites throughout the area.
We came to realise that hexavelant chromium was lying in the sites, but, to its credit, Glasgow district council—with which I am not always in tune—commissioned a survey by Dames and Moore, which cost upwards of £150,000, so that it could get the facts and figures, not hearsay and ad hoc comments.
The survey outlined in specific detail what was wrong with each of the sites, and each category of chromium waste contamination of the sites. That has caused great worry and concern in the area about health. Four or five years ago, it was proven that there was an abnormal rise in the number of leukaemia cases in the Cambuslang area. The health board, at my instigation, carried out an investigation and confirmed that there was an abnormal blip in the number of leukaemia cases, but it could not link it to the chromium waste sites. In similar circumstances, it had found no explanation for the rise in leukaemia cases in different areas in Scotland.
Although I accept that it has not been proven, and I use that phrase advisedly, that cancer can be caused by these chromium waste sites, the fact that they exist and have been categorised by Greater Glasgow health board as causing health risks—that has been proven—heightens apprehension in the area.
Although one or two individuals in organisations have been over the top in scaremongering on this issue, I do not blame any family who is concerned about the health risk for children. I stay only five minutes walk from one of these sites. Families are quite right to be concerned and to pressurise and harass me to try to get something done. I, in turn, am passing the matter on to the Scottish Office. I do not blame folk for being concerned about the health risks. Greater Glasgow health board concedes that these sites are health risks if the chromium waste is disturbed; the dust can be breathed in, which can cause health problems. Problems can be caused if the chromium is


touched. If young children play on the sites and then put their hands in their mouth, swallowing the chromium can also cause them health risks.
I have pursued this environmental disaster with the Glasgow development agency and Scottish Enterprise, to which I had been referred by Scottish Office Ministers. The local enterprise councils made the point that they had no funding to take care of the sites. I then went to the paymasters—the Scottish Office Ministers—who said that there was an allocation for Scottish Enterprise and the Glasgow development agency to take care of the sites, at least to make a start. But then I came up against a policy that said that remedial work should be carried out on such sites only if there was an economic end use. It is quite wrong that people's health should be put at risk purely and simply because some bureaucrat in the Scottish Office says that, because there is no economic end use to remedial work sites, no work should be carried out.
I would like to record without hesitation the valuable support and encouragement that were given to me by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) when he was a Scottish Office Minister, and the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was extremely helpful in trying to process grants.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary revealed a change of policy on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency when he said that it would have the ability and powers to tackle these contaminated waste sites. I hope that I can get some clarification from Ministers that the criteria of economic end use will no longer be applied to any work to remedy sites that have been contaminated in this way.
It was quite right that I paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfries and to the hon. Member for Eastwood, but my meeting in Dover house, Whitehall with the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), was like bashing my head against a brick wall. That is the only description that I can apply to it. With me was Mr. Brian Kelly, Glasgow district council's director of environmental health. He was a totally neutral public servant. He was so exasperated that he asked the then Secretary of State whether someone would have to die or be proven to be seriously ill before he would act and give us some resources to try to get something done about the sites.
There are, unfortunately, swathes of land in the west of Scotland that are contaminated, but my constituency and surrounding areas are the only areas of Scotland that are contaminated by chromium waste. No precedent would be set by the Scottish Office in ensuring that resources were given for tackling this drastic problem in my area.
Recently, Scottish Enterprise allocated around £150,000 to Glasgow district council for experimental work in each of the sites to find the best solution for each site. That is certainly useful, but there was no commitment—I fully understand that—from Scottish Enterprise to make a start and to allocate the millions of pounds that will be required to make all the sites safe. I am a realist and am not looking for £20 million immediately, but I think that it is right that the Scottish Office, in conjunction with the unitary authority of South Lanarkshire and with Europe should combine different pots of money to tackle the problem. I know that not one pot of money is available to tackle it, but if there is good will and co-operation, the Government should co-operate and contribute other pots of money to tackle it.
There is hope that some of the sites will be tackled fairly soon because of the planned extension of the M74, which will run from Fullerton to the Kingston bridge. I emphasise that that is an extension, not a new motorway, and it is crazy that one small section should not be completed. I make no apology for supporting the M74 extension. It is right to do so.
There are potential benefits in that the motorway route runs through or adjacent to a number of chromium-contaminated sites. Those sites will be tackled as part of the motorway extension. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfries, who initially suggested that, although the motorway extension might not be planned to go ahead for another couple of years, the associated works which will remedy the sites should be brought forward and the money spent now. That would considerably reduce the number of contaminated sites and reduce the amount of money required. That is a reasonable point of view, and I hope to obtain the co-operation of the Scottish Office on that issue.
I shall await a reply from the Minister and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on whether the requirement of an economic end use before contaminated sites are treated has now been removed and whether the sites to which I have referred, which have "only" environmental and health risk factors to be taken into account, can be included.
I make no party political point, but the Under-Secretary said that the Government were leading the way in treating Scotland's environment properly. I extend an open invitation to all Scottish Office Ministers to come to my constituency to see the sites and the scale of the problem there and to say whether they would like to have such areas in their constituencies, fenced off as a health risk to the public. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who has already come to my constituency at short notice. I invite Ministers then to look me and my constituents in the face and say that there is no way in which they can help. I look forward to receiving assistance.

Mr. Phil Gallie: First, I apologise for missing the opening speech. I was involved in a meeting with a Minister from the Department of Transport on an issue of great environmental and economic importance to my constituents—the opening of a new air route between Prestwick and Stansted in the not-too-distant future.
That route will have great environmental benefits, easing pressures on the roads, around other airports and particularly on Heathrow, which is undoubtedly overcrowded and where passengers have problems getting to the city centre.
I was surprised at the omission of roads from this environmental debate, particularly since at the end of yesterday's Scottish Grand Committee the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had a debate on the Fochabers bypass, an environmental issue worthy of discussion. I understand that some progress was announced on the provision of bypasses yesterday.
The provision of roads throughout Scotland, particularly since 1979, has done much to remove the congestion and pollution resulting from the use of the motor car on roads that cannot cope with them. The progress on roads is one aspect of environmental improvement for which the Government can take credit.
I make no apology for referring to local road issues. I draw attention to the stushie about the M77 between Malletsheugh at the top of the A77 and the M8 in Glasgow. A great environmental row broke out over that road, which was destined to improve the environment for many people in Glasgow and certainly for my constituents in Ayrshire and those to the south of Glasgow who want to travel into the city or to the north.
We listened to the so-called environmentalists. For a period, there was trouble and strife, but now all that has gone quiet and I am pleased to say that the M77 is being built to what I hope will be time.
But another threat comes from the so-called environmentalists, and that is a block on the upgrading of the top end of the A77, where motorway standards are desired by the Government, by all in local government in Strathclyde and certainly by all Members of Parliament in Ayrshire.
Here again, we have objections from the mindless environmentalists—people who do not really look at the issues, but simply make a lot of noise. Again, they put in jeopardy the safety of my constituents and the constituents of others. I should like to think that Ministers could ignore their siren cry, but I understand that a public inquiry on the upgrading of that road to motorway standard will almost certainly be required in order to quell their arguments. Every so-called environmentalist who has objected to that road should have on their conscience any deaths or accidents that occur on that stretch in the immediate future. Great shame should be felt by such individuals.
Talking of shame, I come to some of the points that have already been made, in particular with regard to Brent Spar and the shame that should be felt by Greenpeace. It put up scare stories completely in line with those that we hear so often from Opposition spokesmen. We have heard inconsistencies and the distortion of facts—all the rubbish that comes from Opposition spokesmen on occasions which tends towards scaremongering rather than analysing the facts.
Shell considered the position, as did the Government over the years, and it came up with an acceptable proposal for dumping the Brent Spar. Yet that was stopped at the last minute by inaccurate and prejudiced comments.
The problem now is that Brent Spar is stuck in Norway and something has to be done with it. The safest solution was that previously proposed. That seems to be the view of experts across the board. But now other factors must be taken into account. Other risks are associated with the moving of the rig in the coming autumn or winter. If it ends up dumped in the North sea, it will be because of those who listen to Greenpeace and, perhaps, those in the SNP who give them such support.
While we are talking about dumping at sea, it is worth noting a matter of concern to all in the Clyde estuary—phosphorus sticks. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to most of the dangers caused by those sticks, which I accept and endorse. However, I take exception to his comment that the Government seem not to be responding. Why does he believe that those particular sticks come from the Beaufort dyke? I shall give him the opportunity to reply to that. I understand that no one can identify their source, or establish whether they

were used by the Ministry of Defence. It is not known whether their source is private—or even whether they were dumped over the side of a ship by some foreign merchant years ago. To say that they definitely came from Beaufort dyke is to make an unwarranted assumption.

Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that he is certain that the sticks do not come from the Beaufort dyke arms dump? If he had listened to my speech, he would know that I called for a Government investigation of the source of the munitions.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman is rather late in calling for such an investigation. The Government have been examining the position for three or four weeks. I give credit to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for raising the issue—and to the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I even give credit to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who, along with others, accompanied me to meet representatives of British Gas.
We have all taken an interest in the matter; we are all concerned. But to suggest that the Scottish Office, the MOD and the Department of Trade and Industry have not registered the anxieties that have been expressed is a travesty of justice and a distortion of the truth.
It did surprise me that, at the time when we met representatives of British Gas, there had been no troughing along the pipeline that British Gas was running. While I was not prepared to point the finger at British Gas and identify it as one of the sources of the problem that had arisen in the short term, I am sure that my hon. Friends the Ministers will take account of that point and will stringently examine possible steps to end the threat to the entire Clyde estuary.
I am surprised that, in a debate on the environment, no one has mentioned the touchy subject of floods. That is particularly surprising in view of last year's events in Paisley. Recent correspondence from people in the area stresses that responsibility lies with local authorities: it is up to them to identify the remedies. They can now refer to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for expert advice, and SEPA is obliged to provide that advice. I am sure that, if reasonable requests are made for capital allocations, the Government will use their limited resources to try to deal with this important issue.
Needless to say, the nationalists referred to nuclear matters. I do not understand why hon. Members who have every opportunity to examine the facts and consider the issues relating to environmental protection cannot be a bit friendlier to the nuclear industry. Nearly every aspect of the nuclear industry—for instance, air pollution and safety—make it to the top of the poll; it is certainly an environmentally friendly industry. As for alternative forms of generation—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Chernobyl?") It is good that we have a capable nuclear industry that can deal safely with such matters, and can offer advice to those who operate plants such as Chernobyl to ensure that such accidents never happen again.
If we, like the nationalists, had buried our heads in the sand and refused to examine nuclear issues, we would not have been able to offer the rest of the world the expertise that can create the safe environment that these islands require. With nuclear power and other forms of


environmental pollution, these islands do not stand alone: we depend on the co-operation of other nations and industries to improve the environment.
Fears are expressed about safety in the nuclear industry. Whether it is in the private or the public sector, the responsibilities of the nuclear inspectorate do not change; nor do the safety factors. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me, but I am not aware of any Government plans to privatise the inspectorate. It will remain a Government body, charged with looking after nuclear safety. The hon. Member for Dundee, East confused the House by suggesting that safety would be a problem.
In his speech, the hon. Gentleman questioned the standing of others with respect to truthfulness. I noted the question put to him by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about Trident. It would have been interesting and honest if he had told us precisely when he was converted to the Trident programme—a conversion that strikes me as being in line with many of the recent conversions of his leaders, and many of the about-turns that he himself has made.
Let me now deal with another form of beach contamination. I am concerned about sea water standards, and about the lack of effort exerted by Strathclyde regional council to keep beaches clean in my constituency and to enforce sewage control in the Clyde estuary. Its handling of the issue has been disgraceful for some years. Thank heavens, at long last we are to have a water and sewerage authority that will stand aside from political doctrine and intrigue and provide decent facilities for my constituents. I warmly welcome the interest already shown by the new West of Scotland board in future provision and sewage treatment.
Let us look back at the Government's handling of environmental issues in recent years. The condition of our rivers is better than it has been for centuries; fish are reaching the upper levels of rivers where they have not been for many years. Air standards have also improved, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out—the Government's environmental legislation has undoubtedly improved the environmental well-being of the countryside.
The term "the environment" does not refer only to what happens in the countryside, or in towns and villages; it refers to what happens in our homes. Another of the Government's major achievements concerns energy provision. Energy prices have fallen, particularly following the privatisation programmes. That is important to elderly people who need warm, comfortable homes. I commend the Government on policies that allow elderly people to use various facilities, and to ensure that their homes are draught-proofed and warm during the colder months.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East registered another conversion when he spoke of the need for people today to consider the requirements of those who will inhabit our land tomorrow. Given Labour's past policy in government, in local authorities and in opposition, especially their economic policy—their "spend today, pay tomorrow" attitude—that is a conversion indeed.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and her party on bringing the debate to the House today. I notice that the Order Paper says:

The Opposition Day is at the disposal of the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party",
so I hope that she appreciates that the leader of that party is such a nice person.

Mr. Gallie: Which one?

Mrs. Michie: The only one—well, the only one for a federal party.
I was concerned about the rather dismissive way in which the two Front-Bench spokesmen talked about Dounreay. It made me feel that they did not realise what widespread anxiety exists. I understand that is possible—neither of them lives in the highlands region—but there is a great deal of concern and I would like to articulate it.
We have already heard about the unexplained discovery of radioactive particles on the foreshore at Dounreay, about the explosion in 1977 in an intermediate level waste disposal shaft, and about the proposals for reprocessing work to be undertaken at Dounreay to a far greater extent than has happened in the past. People in the highlands are asking: why should Dounreay and Scotland be the recipient of highly enriched fuel rods which other countries refuse to accept?

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Lady thinks that the people of the highlands have such a strong view on that respect, will she explain why they continue to support her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who takes a very different line from the one that she is putting forward?

Mrs. Michie: I will come to the reason why those people and indeed many of us support the work of Dounreay, but—

Mr. Bill Walker: On the one hand or the other hand.

Mrs. Michie: No, not on the one hand or the other hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is seriously worried about what is going on at Dounreay. All these problems raise questions about radiological hazards and there is further anxiety about the transport of nuclear materials to and from Dounreay, despite what people say. Those concerns have not been adequately dealt with by the Government, by the regulators or by the site operators.
From time to time, public anxieties about specific activities have been voiced. There was strong opposition to the location at Dounreay of a waste depository to be managed by Nirex, and we successfully saw that off. I and my party believe that nuclear waste should go nowhere. It should not be deposited underground, but stored on site above ground, where it can be monitored until the time comes—surely some time—when it can be neutralised.
The position today, however, is even more serious up north. There is now a more widespread questioning of the adequacy of the regime to protect the public and the environment from unacceptable levels of contamination and hazard. In particular—we have heard about it already—the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee on the particles in the vicinity of Dounreay, which was published in May this year, expressed concern that relevant information had not been communicated to COMARE by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.
Dounreay operates under a licence from the nuclear installations inspectorate. Both the NII and Euratom frequently have inspectors on site, as has the industrial pollution inspectorate, supposedly applying internationally agreed safety standards. We must therefore ask why deficiencies were not picked up by those regulators before the COMARE report and properly dealt with. If the public cannot trust the mainstream regulators both to do a proper policing job and to communicate their findings, it is little wonder that widespread anxieties are aroused.
There has been a failure in communication and a loss of confidence about what is going on there and I ask the Government and relevant bodies to deal with that. They should not just dismiss it, but perhaps take it from me that there might just be a little problem.
We all appreciate of course that Dounreay employs many people and plays an important part in the economy of Caithness, but the Government should heed the concern of the people of the highlands, of the highlands and islands councils and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, all of which are working to promote and project the highlands and islands as a clean, clear, pollution-free and beautiful region.
I would like to think that the Government could be considering Dounreay, which is already 40 years old, as a valuable resource for future research into matters such as alternative sources of energy. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has left the Chamber, because one of the things that they could be considering is how to develop tiny wind farms, which would not offend him when he looked out on the beautiful scenery.
I should like to give one other demonstration of the extent of the concern. The other day, I was faxed from the Isle of Mull a message drawing my attention to the fact that
a ship containing flasks of plutonium nitrate being taken from Dounreay to Sellafield travelled through the Minches on the night of Sunday the eighth of October in estimated weather conditions of gale force six to seven.
The small vessel—the … Shearwater—is believed to have sheltered from force nine winds in Loch Eriboll"—
which is in Sutherland—
the night before, then proceeded down the Sound of Mull where she was sighted at 0800 off Tobermory … She then proceeded over the Beaufort Dyke at a time when the Adrossan Ferry was cancelled due to the atrocious weather.
My constituents are trying to draw my attention to the fact that perhaps it was dangerous to set off from Dounreay to Sellafield with those rods in such bad weather.
I do not have much time to say other than a brief word about the offshore disposal of the Brent Spar and other North sea installations. In itself, the Brent Spar platform would have represented only a minor addition to the vast quantities of toxic sludge added to the waters every day, but a clear message was sent to the giant multinationals that have thrived for so long off the liquid gold buried beneath the seas, and to other Governments and our Government: abandoning waste at sea is simply no longer acceptable.
We are not talking about scare stories. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke about our children and their future. He said that we were

stewards of their future. There comes a time when the accumulated abuse of our common heritage comes home to roost and society then says no and decides to tolerate such abuse no longer.
When I see platforms such as Brent Spar or the rigs that are sitting in Invergordon waiting to be disposed of, I wish that we could introduce a second economy into the highlands. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked the companies at Ardersier and Nigg and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to examine the possibility of recycling and disposing of the rigs.
That brings me to Beaufort dyke and the serious events on the west coast of Scotland, in particular round the shores of Argyll and Bute during the past few weeks. Hundreds of incendiary devices have been washed up on our beaches, posing a real danger to public and polluting the environment.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) protests that the Government have done a lot, but to date there has been a lack of urgency in dealing with the matter and many questions remain unanswered. We went to meet the Secretary of State for Defence and he was very helpful in so far as he could be. He said that he would investigate that part of the problem which came under the remit of his Department. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and asked him to make a statement in the House of Commons to let me, my constituents and others know exactly what is going on.
We still do not know where these devices come from. I am not sure whether they come from Beaufort dyke or further north, whether they were disturbed by the 40-tonne plough that was pulled along by three vessels trenching for cables or whether they came from the munitions dump at Beaufort dyke. We do not know whether the dump is being investigated and monitored—if not, why not? They started coming up some weeks ago and I do not know who is responsible for searching for the devices and clearing the beaches. Is it the police? Is it the coastguard? Who is it?

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Lady join other hon. Members in recognising that the emergency services have been incredibly good and efficient at clearing up the beaches in such unfortunate circumstances? It is the least that she can do for the services in her area.

Mrs. Michie: I am happy to do that. I do not understand why the Minister mentioned it in such a disparaging way. I shall tell the Minister who in my constituency is dealing with the matter. It is mainly the police and they are doing it very well. If the Minister had been patient, he would have heard me commend what they did the other day with regard to the little boy who was injured. The coastguards have also been involved, but the Minister will be aware that there are not many police around the Mull of Kintyre. There are not many coastguards and there are miles of shoreline, including that round the coast of the islands of Bute, Islay and Jura.
It is my impression that the buck is being passed from one Department to another. The Scottish Office says that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the MOD says that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Office, so we seem to be going round in circles.
In response to my warning that something serious could and indeed might happen, the Secretary of State for Defence told me—and he was right, of course—that his


first priority was the safety of the public. Something did happen. My small constituent, four-year-old Gordon Baillie, picked up what he thought was a stick and he was about to throw it away when it ignited. Three fingers of his right hand and the bottom part of his arm were burnt. His clothes were on fire, but his family managed to remove them quickly before even more damage was done.
The following day, the Ministry of Defence arrived at his relatives' house and, without his parents' knowledge or permission, removed the clothes and the container in which they had been placed and burned them on the beach, destroying the evidence. I do not know how significant that evidence was. I know only that the police, whom I commend for their work—I hope that the Minister is listening—took photographs of what happened.
Gordon's mother is obviously very upset and worried. Nobody has really told her what is happening. She asks whether the Government are prepared to take responsibility for the devices, but nobody will tell her what is going on and when they will be cleared up.
Finally, having made that particular point about the incendiary devices, I would like to say again that we must get them removed. It is really important. I hope that the Government will understand that many of the issues raised in the debate cannot be ignored because the people of Scotland will not tolerate it.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in what I think is an important debate, because I live in Scotland, which is an environmentally friendly place. The quality of life in Scotland is so good that we try not to tell other people about it in case too many of them come and join us. We have a splendid quality of life.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was probably as interested as I was to learn that, along with the view of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that it will probably be 100 years before Scotland can achieve independence, it will probably be 100 years before Scotland can be a nuclear-free country.
We have heard a great deal of humbug and nonsense about transportation of nuclear materials on Scottish roads. I have to declare an interest, as a large part of it goes through my constituency. Nuclear materials have been trundling around on our roads and railways very safely for 40-odd years.
Opposition Members are trying to scare the people of Scotland by overstating the problem that could or might arise. When I asked how many people had died as a result of nuclear accidents on our roads and railways, the answer was none. However, under normal driving conditions, someone dies on the A9 every weekend. It is much more dangerous for reasons other than the movement of nuclear materials, because of the splendid controls. It ought not to surprise us.
In 1993, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) was advocating civil disobedience against any laws that might be made in Scotland. How can we take seriously any debate introduced by someone who is trying to occupy the moral high ground when we know that she has publicly advocated civil disobedience? That is the type of nonsense that we must expose in the debate.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East skilfully revealed the double standards of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who supports one thing in Committee and then adopts an entirely different position simply because of his political opportunism.
The plain truth is that the nuclear industry in Scotland employs many people, and is a good and safe employer. I accept that people should question how things are done in that industry from time to time. Such questioning is part of the monitoring process carried out by the House.
I have no criticism of the way in which the hon. Member for Dundee, East addressed the issue. He is right to say that we are talking about our grandchildren's inheritance. We should address the issue logically, sensibly and objectively. Frankly, I do not care when the hon. Member for Dundee, East changed his mind, if he did, on Trident.
We are talking not about that but about the motion on the Order Paper and the humbug that we have had to take from members of the Scottish National party. We must expose it for what it is. The SNP is not interested in environmental issues; rather, it is interested in trying to scare the Scottish people by presenting them with untruths and scare stories. It manufactures facts to suit its own ends.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross has criticised the Government for their ad hoc approach, but let us consider how they have dealt with the incendiary devices that have unfortunately been washed up on beaches in south-west Scotland. No one knows where those devices have come from, but we all know that the problem must be addressed.
For the hon. Lady to suggest that no inquiry has been launched, and no one has done anything about the devices, is absolute nonsense. The truth is that Labour and Conservative Members have seen Ministers to express their concern. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has quite properly seen Ministers to express her concern about the injury to one of her constituents' children. That is what Parliament is for, and we have done our job effectively. We must not, however, make definitive comments that cannot be substantiated. None of us knows for certain where those devices have come from.
We are aware that certain recent activities in the sea may be related to the appearance of the devices. That is not an unreasonable suggestion, so it is right and proper to consider all the relevant facts. After all, dumping in Beaufort dyke has been going on since the end of the second world war, so it has been agreed by successive Governments. There is no question about the Government, whoever they were at the time of the dumping, being held accountable for the munitions dumped in Beaufort dyke. Should those devices belong to the Ministry of Defence, or the Air Ministry, or whatever it was known as at the time of the dumping, it should be possible to work out exactly when they were dumped.
Because of my background, I happen to have some slight knowledge of the type of incendiary devices carried on aircraft. I do not know whether such devices have been washed up on beaches recently, but once the identity of those devices has been pinpointed, it should be possible to find out how they ended up in the water. Until that happens, it is all down to guesswork. I commend the Government for what they have already done to solve the problem, and I believe that they will find the answer and


deal with those devices effectively. I expect them to do just that, not least because that that is what we are required to do by numerous statutes.
I commend the Government for the various statutes they have introduced—for example, the Environmental Protection Act 1990—and for those that have led to the introduction of Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, as well as the agency to monitor air pollution. They represent a deliberate attempt to address current problems, some of which were created by our forbearers.
We must accept that certain problems must be addressed, but we must not overstate them. Scotland is a superb place in which to live. We do not live under the threat of a nuclear holocaust, as has been suggested. We do not live with the threat of former drilling rigs, research rigs or loading rigs being dumped in the North sea—that has never been proposed. To suggest that they might be dumped somewhere near Scotland was equally inaccurate.
It is right that we should debate the environment and find answers to the problems that face it. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East—I hope that that does not make him feel uncomfortable—who made a telling speech, which deserves credit. His speech showed the way in which we should tackle the matter. He is right to say that we must find the right answers to certain problems, because we have a duty and a responsibility to do so. That does not mean we cannot display the normal party divisions and differences, but there is common ground between us on environmental matters. We should all recognise that.
What I am attacking is the humbug displayed today by members of the SNP. Their motion does nothing for Scotland's interests or the confidence of the people who work in the nuclear and oil industries. It does nothing to allay the concerns expressed about devices found on west coast beaches. Their motion is all about fear. The SNP may argue that it will give people a nuclear-free Scotland, but the hon. Member for Dundee, East extracted the truth—live long enough, say 100 years, and one may see that happen.
The truth is that the SNP is interested in scoring narrow political points. It has no interest in benefiting the Scottish people or the environment of Scotland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I compliment the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on her introduction to the debate.
We were all concerned to hear about the injuries suffered by the young constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). As for the passage of certain vessels through the Minches, I have long argued that vessels ploughing the sea bed, along with heavy tankers, should stand to the west of the Western Isles, especially in heavy weather. I said that to the former Secretary of State for Transport, who is now masquerading as the chairman of the Conservative party. He promised me across the Floor of the House that he would examine my request, and that he would seriously consider instructing such vessels to stand clear of the Minches and the Western Isles.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) criticised the Opposition parties for presenting a distorted picture of the Government's environmental record—for example, in relation to sites of special scientific interest. For his part, he failed to remind the House of the appalling carelessness of Scottish Office Ministers and officials—I believe he was a Minister at the time—when they designated a development site on a SSSI within the Inverclyde enterprise zone.
I refer to the Parklea site. I warned at the time that such designation would fall foul of the European Union's flora and fauna directive. That site will never be developed because of that. They were equally careless in selecting as another site for potential development the Gourock rope works, a listed industrial building. Six years later, that site is still derelict, but those Ministers and their complacent officials have walked away from their mistakes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the Beaufort dyke scandal. The right hon. Member for Dumfries said that we should not cause alarm and despondency among the people who live on the firth of Clyde and surrounding areas. He is absolutely right. Yet those events have caused deep concern among our constituents, so it is right and proper that we hold the Government to account over the rigour of their investigation and the efficacy of the prescriptions that they offer to solve that dangerous problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and others have made serious allegations about the presence of highly dangerous substances in shallow waters outwith the Beaufort dyke. That is a very serious complaint, especially to our fishermen who fish those shallow waters with their demersal gear.
I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is not responsible for fisheries, but all Ministers bear a responsibility, not only to our youngsters and others who walk along our beaches, but to our fishermen who fish those shallow waters. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and I are honorary presidents—

Mr. Foulkes: And the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

Dr. Godman: I am sorry, and the hon. Lady. I do not know how I missed her. My sincere apologies to the delightful hon. Lady. We are honorary presidents of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and our members fish close to that area outwith the Beaufort dyke. I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), say that he would study the video and other evidence exhaustively.
I want to ask the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside a couple of questions. If such substances are scattered about in shallow water—wherever there is shallow water around our coastline, there are traditional fishing grounds: no one can dispute that—would he give serious consideration to their recovery? Could not the squadron of mine-laying vessels which are to be based not so far from my constituency be used in such an operation? Or would it be possible to adapt the gear of a big freezer trawler so that it could trawl those seas and make the seas clean for our fishermen?
I remind the Under-Secretary—I do not need to remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, because he is a fisheries expert—that a big-sterned trawler can shoot its


gear and drag its trawl upwards of a mile astern. It seems that the Under-Secretary should consider such matters in thinking about cleaning the seas. Our fishermen deserve that consideration. A big freezer trawler could be used.
Incidentally, I am not looking for a job for my brother, who just happens to be the mate of such a vessel. If a freezer trawler cannot be adapted, minesweeping vessels could be used so that, outwith the Beaufort dyke, our fishermen can safely go about their lawful business.
While talking about clean seas, I wish to say a word about the disposal of redundant offshore installations and pipeline networks. I maintain—here I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Ayr—that those seas where and whenever possible should be swept clean in the interests of our fishermen who have played the game by their agreements with the oil and gas companies.
Part I of the Petroleum Act 1987—

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: In one second.
Part I of the Petroleum Act allows the Government—not these Under-Secretaries, unfortunately—to reject the disposal proposals made by an offshore oil or gas company in relation to a redundant platform or redundant pipeline networks.
I listened closely to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) when he talked about the recommendations and the findings of the Select Committee on Energy. That report makes a lot of sense about some installations. I do not believe that we will be able to shift the big concrete structures—we might have to put Christmas tree fairy lights on them as navigational aids—but many other structures can and should be removed.

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Dr. Godman: Sorry, I have run out of time.
I remind the House that, during the passage of the Petroleum Bill in 1986, the late and much-lamented Alick Buchanan-Smith claimed that the disposal of redundant rigs could lead to much employment in the highlands and islands and elsewhere. I would like to think that the law applied. His successor, Mr. Peter Morrison, when Minister at the Department of Energy, said in a speech in Aberdeen that perhaps upwards of 3,000 jobs could be created in dealing with the safe and efficient disposal of those redundant platforms and pipeline networks.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to the disposal of rigs at sea and the threat to fishermen. The Government have made it quite clear that the Brent Spar was a one-off situation. It was to be buried in deep water where there was no fishing interest, and there were no protests from the fishermen—they accepted the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that?

Dr. Godman: I am not so sure that all the fishermen to whom I spoke accepted the sense of dumping that structure west of the Hebrides. There was no question of it being dumped in the North sea—we all know that—but, nevertheless, reservations were voiced about it. What will happen to this North-west Hutton platform and other installations which need to be disposed of other then by toppling them? I am on the side of the fishermen. The sea

should be swept clean, because the fishermen have played the game by the multinationals. The multinationals should play the game by our fishermen.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for leaving me a few minutes in which to speak mainly on a constituency point concerning phosphorous flares. I shall first make a couple of references to the debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate. Unfortunately, it seems to have been narrowly focused. There are many environmental issues that are much more pressing than those the debate addresses. I speak in support of the Scottish nuclear industry—nuclear with a small "n". The hysteria about Dounreay does no credit and pays no respect to an industry that has given good-quality employment to thousands of people in the highlands over the past 40 years or so.
There is not the remotest evidence of anyone being killed or injured by the activities at Dounreay. When we have a first-class Scottish industry, why it should be in anyone's interest to run it down I honestly do not know. The heads on the Conservative Front Bench will stop nodding at this point.
The threat to this nuclear industry of ours, which has a fantastically safe reputation, comes not from Dounreay but from privatisation. That is what will run down the skills. [Interruption.] I assure the House that I would be worried if Conservative Members spent the next five minutes nodding, but I am not worried about the fact that they are now disagreeing. The core of expertise in the nuclear industry is going to be run down as the new company—if it ever happens, and it is a very big "if'— moves away from nuclear to other sources of generation.
The second brief point that I want to make is about land. Again, it disappoints me and I find it extraordinary that a debate on the Scottish environment does not encompass the issue of land, particularly in the week after the Secretary of State for Scotland set one of his frequent hares running in an initiative that seems to contain no substance at all.
By raising the issue of the Scottish Office crofting estates, the Secretary of State will have caused a great deal of apprehension on those estates, for this is the third time that the possibility of the estates being sold off has been raised since 1979. It would be helpful if, in one sentence, the Under-Secretary gave an assurance that there is to be no compulsion attached to the proposed sale of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland crofting estates. I should also like the Minister to tell us whether it was just wind when the Secretary of State for Scotland talked about the proposals applying to private landlords. Everyone in the House knows—whether they admit it or not is a different matter—and certainly all Opposition Members know that the problem with crofting estates in Scotland is not with the publicly owned estates but with the privately owned ones. To talk about an initiative or a reform that does not touch the privately owned estates is a fraud, as the Minister will perhaps acknowledge as well.
I now turn to the phosphorus flares which have cropped up regularly in my constituency and which have caused a great deal of apprehension. I agree entirely here with the


hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I do not know where the flares are coming from and my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) do not claim to know, either. What we do know is that there is a problem. It is common sense that, if there is a problem, one does not risk exacerbating it.
I also acknowledge that it is very likely that the stuff that is being thrown up and a great deal of what is in the Clyde and the northern approaches comes from a period either during or after the second world war. I should have thought that everyone in the House would thank God for the fact that we were at that time a United Kingdom. To turn around now and to complain that the Clyde was used as a dumping ground on some sort of ethnic basis seems to be carrying nationalism to its logical absurdity.
We know that as well as phosphorus flares there is a lot of other material in the Clyde and in the northern approaches. The point that we made to Cedric Brown when my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—I know that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) would have been there—

Mr. Gallie: I was there.

Mr. Wilson: I apologise. We always take the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) along.
Nobody is interested in which Government Department is passing which buck to whom. However, if British Gas goes ahead with the operation in the full knowledge that there is potential for further disruption and for far more serious substances and materials to come ashore, responsibility will lie exclusively with British Gas and with nobody else. That point was made forcefully. What happened at the weekend near Campbeltown only reinforces that point.
We must have better information about what is in the Clyde and in the northern approaches. In the meantime, we must have a freeze on activities that common sense suggests are likely to disturb the area and to cause substances to be cast up. Nobody is making accusations, but we are all entitled to make reasonable assumptions about what is possible and what is not possible. My plea is that there should be no further activity to disrupt these materials until we have a far more comprehensive survey of what is there and what the potential is for disturbance of the materials and, therefore—heaven forbid—for much more serious injuries or worse to our constituents.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In concluding this debate on behalf of the Scottish National party, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in it. It is clear from the attendance this afternoon and from the vehemence of some of the arguments that there is a great need to debate environmental issues pertaining to Scotland. The motion was, of course, constricted in certain ways, so I hope that there will be other opportunities to open up some of the points that have been touched on in this debate. None the less, the debate has been extremely worth while.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on the way in which she moved the motion. All of us recognise that she has been

in the House for only a short time—indeed, it was only her second speech in the House. She put forward with great authority a strong, coherent and well-researched case and she dealt effectively with interventions from both sides of the House. She deserves our congratulations.
I want to comment on one or two points raised by hon. Members during the debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), went at one stage into what can only be described if not as a purple passage, certainly as a green passage during which it was quite difficult even for him to keep his face straight. He referred to the Scottish National party trying to claim moral absolutism. The SNP is not trying to do that in this debate. We are raising issues that are of genuine concern to people the length and breadth of our country and beyond. We are also talking about the economic realities of what faces the people of Scotland if environmental issues are not addressed effectively and thoroughly.
The Minister should, perhaps, look at the report from the conference in 1990 which resulted from a meeting held in Inverness, sponsored by Highland regional council, at which members of various of the political parties and local representatives participated. They talked then about the problems of looking at Dounreay as being the Nirex centre for the disposal of nuclear waste. We had people there from the National Farmers Union, from the Scottish shellfish growers, from Highland Fine Cheeses, from distilleries and from all sorts of businesses the length and breadth of the area. They all made strongly the case that we needed to protect our environment because our industries and our employment were dependent upon the perception of a clean environment. Those arguments hold true today and I suggest that the Minister acquires a copy of the report. We are talking not about moral absolutism, but about economic realities.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that the SNP did not seem to be prepared to accept responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste in Scotland. We have always argued that the disposal of nuclear waste by any organisation in our country should be on site and above ground where careful monitoring should take place. If the hon. Gentleman read the Official Report more carefully, he would see that I said exactly that on 25 April 1991 in a debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. I said:
The burying of nuclear waste is the greatest danger we face, because no one can predict seismic or underwater movements. The waste will need to be monitored for centuries, and that is why it must be stored on site and above ground."—[Official Report, 25 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1234.]
It would not be a victory for us if nuclear waste were to be buried at Sellafield. The point was made clearly. We accept the responsibility for what is happening in our country, but we tell the Minister that because contracts have been made in the past that may involve the transportation of nuclear waste and so on, we should ensure that any contracts made in future do not create any further difficulties.
It also seemed that the Minister was backing off from the issues that have been raised in the context of the Brent Spar. He said that he thought that what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had said in the Select Committee on Energy was wrong. We spoke then about a case-by-case attitude, but when such an attitude is discussed, the discussions should obviously


not include people who have vested interests with financial advantages. That is the case in the disposal of many of the platforms. Both the companies and the Government have financial interests at stake.
I now turn to my main remarks. I shall concentrate essentially on the Beaufort dyke because hon. Members here this afternoon have stressed the issue and it is concentrating the minds of the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had the unfortunate experience of the youngster in her constituency this weekend and various other incidents have caused a great deal of concern.
At our meeting with the Ministry of Defence, it was made clear that there was no identification of the phosphorus objects that were being washed up along our coastline. I find that rather hard to believe, because, with the scientific back-up that is available to any Government Department, there should surely be some ease of identification. It was, however, made clear to all of us in the all-party delegation who met the Secretary of State for Defence that under any agreements, mainly coming from Oslo and Helsinki, the dumping of unused munitions at sea should be safe and that such dumping was probably the safest method. However, it was also said that such munitions should not be disturbed and should remain as much as 263 fathoms under the sea.
When we had the all-party meeting, the pipeline that is being laid across the sea bed was still on the surface of the sea bed and we were told that it would remain so for some time because of the concerns that had been raised. Yet the same group who met less than 24 hours later with British Gas was told that approval had been given by the Ministry of Defence and by the Department of Trade and Industry to commence troughing on the sea bed.
Apparently that permission was given less than one hour after we left the Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall. British Gas received a fax via Vauxhall barracks at Didcot timed at 11.39 am on 18 October, although the letter was dated 17 October, which was the day of our meeting at the Ministry of Defence. The letter giving permission and raising the prohibition order was written an hour after we left.
That was a despicable way in which to treat concerned Members of Parliament. It shows a complete lack of co-ordination and gives contradictory signals to people who are paying attention to the issue. Now we hear that alternative attitudes may be taken, and I shall talk about those in due course.
I have other questions to raise in the context of what is happening at Beaufort dyke and what has been dumped there. Many of us are not clear exactly what was dumped not only in the dyke but in the areas immediately surrounding it.
I have been given information about a farm at Smarden, in Kent, where in January 1963 two acres of ground were sprayed with the pesticide fluoroaceteamid. The cows on the land died in convulsions, because it was highly toxic, and 2,000 tonnes of contaminated soil from the farm were removed and loaded into a boat called the Halcince, which sailed from Rochester in March 1964 with the aim of dumping the contaminated soil at an unidentified Atlantic site.
If Ministers cannot confirm that tonight, will they at least have the courtesy to write to me and to the other members of the all-party group who have been raising the issue of dumping contaminated substances at sea?
At our meeting, the Secretary of State for Defence promised that he would place as soon as possible in the Library all records and information held by the Ministry of Defence on the disposal of munitions. Of course, the choice of such records will depend on classification, and they will relate only to conventional munitions and explosives. Who will have access to information about chemicals, and perhaps civilian nuclear waste? I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority may have disposed of civilian nuclear waste, and possibly nerve gas, in the area. All that information must be made available.
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross the Minister said that there would be co-ordination, spearheaded by the Scottish Office, of the investigation into what is happening to the Beaufort dyke. Presumably that would mean co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as the Scottish Office.
Which Department will have the final say? Who will take the final decision? I should have thought that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would have a particular interest, because his constituency is affected.
I should also like to know whether close links are being maintained with the local authorities with responsibilities for planning and economic development in the area. It is most important that they be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross has already referred to the remarks made by Alastair Geddes of Dumfries and Galloway.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing: Before I do, I should emphasise that Dumfries and Galloway will be especially interested, because there is the possibility of drilling and exploration for gas off its coast, which could have a huge economic impact, especially in an area of high unemployment.
Since the Minister spoke earlier in the debate, it has come to my attention that information has been released by Lord Lindsay to the Scottish press, making a concession on the issue. Hon. Members taking part in the debate have attempted to get hold of the exact information, and I now understand that the main part of the speech for the Minister who is to reply to the overall debate will say that a fully independent environmental inquiry will be made by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, to be completed before Christmas.
I find it amazing that, since we arranged for the debate—it was well known what it was about and it appeared clearly on the Order Paper; Ministers knew what it was about—even though I had telephone calls from the Scottish Office this morning, no information has been given to hon. Members on the subject.

Mr. Foulkes: I have been trying to get a copy of the announcement all afternoon. It was made by the Earl of Lindsay, and it is improper that it was not made to the House of Commons by the Minister earlier. We do not know exactly what the announcement says, but assuming that there will be an independent marine survey, that is to be welcomed. It is a victory for those of us who have been campaigning on the issue. Does the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) agree that, until that independent survey is completed, all commercial operations in the area


must stop? It would be outrageous if British Gas were to continue its operations while the survey was being undertaken.

Mrs. Ewing: I agree. It was extremely discourteous of the Government not to advise us of the announcement. Of course we welcome it, if the news is true. We await confirmation from the Minister, and I know that Lord Lindsay has listened to most of our debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that troughing and all other activities in the area should stop until the full results of the inquiry are placed before us.
I trust that the inquiry will cover representations from the local communities, so that they are well aware of what is happening, and from the Members of Parliament who have pursued the matter ruthlessly for some time. The subject was first raised in 1985 by my predecessor, the right hon. Donald Stewart—a greatly respected man in the House—and it is a matter for great concern. Why has it taken the Government so long to concede eventually that a real inquiry is needed? I regard the concession as a victory for those of us who tabled the motion, and those who have worked together in the all-party group to place the issue before the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): This has been an interesting debate, which has largely concentrated on three main issues—Dounreay, Brent Spar and the phosphorous flares that have appeared off the south-west of Scotland.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) hit the nail firmly on the head when he said that although several Opposition Members had made responsible speeches—I commend them for the fact they have often kept party politics out of things, and there has been rational discussion of the issues—the Scottish National party, typically, has tried to go for the cheap headline rather trying to address the environmental issues in Scotland. Scottish National party Members seem intent on looking at the negative rather than at the positive.
I shall start by dealing with some of the questions asked by Opposition Members. I noticed that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) press-released her speech on Monday, obviously fearful that the representatives of the media would not be interested enough to attend the debate. Looking up at the Press Gallery, I conclude that she was right—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I apologise; Opposition Members tell me that the Aberdeen Press and Journal, ever attentive to issues involving Scotland, is here in strength.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: No, I shall not give way now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will claim to be a member of the press, and I trust that, if so, it is firmly declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Clearly it is for the chief inspector of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate to decide whether the application from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy

Authority for authorisation of radioactive discharges at Dounreay is to be granted. The chief inspector has not yet determined UKAEA's application, but in doing so he will take full account of any comments received in consultations with local authorities and other public bodies yet to be undertaken.
Such consultation will include Government-funded committees, the radioactive waste management advisory committee and the committee on the medical aspects of radioactivity in the environment. The committees have not hesitated in the past to provide constructive criticism where necessary, and I have every confidence that their input will continue to be valuable in the future.
The hon. Lady said that there had been a significant delay in the issuing of discharge authorisations, but I can assure her that consideration of the applications is being carried out with great care by HMIPI. Account has had to be taken of a ruling by Lord Justice Potts about the factors which should be considered in such processes, and HMIPI has obtained further information from the Atomic Energy Authority to ensure that all the relevant factors are considered. Inevitably, this has resulted in some delay. I trust that the hon. Lady wishes to ensure that the case is looked at properly, and I hope that she does not want a conclusion to be reached before the case is judged.
In the motion tabled by her party, the hon. Lady states that she wishes no further discharge authorisations to be given. That would be counter-productive to the interests of Dounreay, but much of what she said was counter-productive to Dounreay. I noted the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for fisheries in his opening speech about the significant employment prospects for people in the Dounreay area. At present, some 1,200 staff are directly employed at the Dounreay site, while 400 contractors and a further 250 people in the local economy are employed in jobs associated with the site.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not in his place, because I am sure that he would have introduced on behalf of his constituents a note of balance to the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I suspect that the hon. Lady's comments would be out of line with what the hon. Gentleman would have to say on behalf of his constituents.
Much of what was said by Opposition Members was put in perspective by the positive speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The latter has been a significant force in the Scottish Office for many years, particularly on the environmental front, and he made a constructive and balanced speech. My right hon. Friend deserves all our commendations, and I expected nothing less than a constructive contribution from him.
Much has been made of the concerns about the transportation of radioactive materials. We must look at the situation with regard to research reactors in Britain and the history of MTR fuel reprocessing here to put the possible US contracts which have been talked about in their proper perspective. MTR fuel reactors exist primarily for research purposes and to produce radio isotopes for medical use. The Atomic Energy Authority has provided a fuel manufacture and reprocessing service to its materials testing reactor customers since the 1950s.


Spent fuel from such reactors has therefore travelled northwards to the reprocessing facility at Dounreay for about 35 years.
During that period, some 12,500 spent fuel elements have been reprocessed. Most came from the UK, but some 25 per cent. were reprocessed on behalf of overseas customers. Because of the steady volume of business, the MTR reprocessing plant has been regularly updated to ensure that it fully complies with the latest technical standards. A new programme of work will ensure that it can operate safely for the next 10 years.
The transport of radioactive material, such as spent fuel, is carried out only in containers which meet the most stringent requirements of the International Atomic Energy Authority, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries clearly pointed out. I wish that the Scottish National party—and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) in particular—would be more constructive and positive about the successes achieved by the workers at Dounreay, rather than doing its usual job of running Scotland down, selling it short and ensuring that the task of those who are trying to make a constructive contribution to the economy is made all the more difficult.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate, we have heard that an announcement has been made to the press outside the House which concerns this debate. There are six minutes left in the debate. After the earlier abuse of procedure, are we not at least entitled to hear the Minister's comments on that announcement so that he can be questioned by hon. Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That may be a point of debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has again tried to get a sound bite and a headline by wasting the time of the House. I am trying to answer the points which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate.
Moving from Dounreay to the subject of the Brent Spar, much nonsense has been—

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask about the phosphorous and Beaufort dyke. I shall come to that last. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, while there is no definite time limit of 7 pm, I shall be seeking to wind up as close as I can to that time.
Much nonsense has been talked about the content of the Brent Spar and the effect of deep sea disposal on the marine environment. That is indefensible when Shell was put to the trouble and expense of producing a thorough best practical environmental option. Account must also be taken of the fact that the marine laboratory in Aberdeen carried out a detailed scientific investigation to assess the site selection, as well as evaluating any likely impact of deep sea disposal on the surrounding environment. In other words, the facts and the science have been conveniently ignored by those seeking merely to sensationalise the situation with regard to the Brent Spar.

I was surprised to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who made one of his more rational speeches, when he referred to the fact that the Select Committee advocated that each individual case should be looked at on a case by case basis. I believe that it will be in the best interests of Scotland and of future generations if we get rid of the Brent Spar in the most environmentally friendly and cost-effective way. We should not be forming preconceived opinions, as the SNP is doing, and Opposition Members should think about the matter carefully and ensure that they are making rational arguments.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) referred to the chromium waste sites in his constituency. I heard everything he said, and I am enthused by the prospect that the situation may be alleviated by the extension of the M74. I understand that the district council's investigations have found that a significant public health risk is not present at any of the sites. However, I take on board the comments of the hon. Gentleman and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, and I shall make sure that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the environment in Scotland hears everything that has been said.
I come now to the situation with regard to phosphorous canisters, and particularly to the comments made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech. There is no doubt that this was a very unfortunate incident involving public safety about which we all share concerns. I should be disappointed if hon. Members from either side of the House sought to belittle the efforts of the voluntary forces and of the Government in trying to get to the bottom of the problem.
I was sad to hear of the incident involving Gordon Baillie, the young constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. Obviously, we shall try to prevent similar incidents arising in future, and the emergency services are trying to clean up the beaches to ensure that the risk of such an incident occurring again is minimised. With regard to the incident relating to clothing, that is the first that I have heard of that incident and I was alarmed to hear the hon. Lady's account of it. I will ensure that the Ministry of Defence is made aware of her interpretation of events and that my colleagues there write to the hon. Lady on that point.
We are all trying hard to ensure that the origin of the phosphorous canisters is discovered. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has undertaken to provide local Members of Parliament with as much information as possible about the disposal of munitions in the Beaufort dyke area. Much has been made in the past few minutes about an announcement. It has been blown out of all proportion. My colleagues and I in the Scottish Office have sought to ensure that we play our part in getting to the bottom of the problem. There was to have been a scheduled survey of the Beaufort dyke area next spring. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the environment in Scotland has announced this afternoon that he is bringing the survey forward to commence before Christmas.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice on the subject. I am trying to be fair to


the House and finish my speech, so I will not take his intervention. The survey will now take place before Christmas. That will give us a better understanding of this complex issue.

Mrs. Ewing: When will it he completed?

Mr. Kynoch: How long is a piece of string? I hope—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: Hon. Members must simply be patient. I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) wants the exercise to be carried out thoroughly and efficiently to ensure that we get the best possible information.
In general terms, this afternoon's debate—

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister must tell us whether the British Gas work will be suspended.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Kynoch: In conclusion, I hope that the House wishes to ensure that issues such as Brent Spar, the dumping of munitions and the problems arising therefrom are viewed objectively rather than emotionally. The nationalists unfortunately put an emotional slant on everything, ignoring the facts and the anxieties of the Scottish people. Most important, there should be respect for the scientific evidence and expertise, of which Scotland has a right to feel proud. By adopting that approach, Scotland's excellent environmental image and reputation will not be unfairly tarnished.
I ask hon. Members to reject the nationalist motion, and I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 159.

Division No. 222]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Beith, RtHon A J
Maddock, Diana


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Rendel, David


Cunningham, Roseanna
Skinner, Dennis


Dafis, Cynog
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Alex Salmond.


Kirkwood, Archy





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Ancram, Michael
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bowis, John





Brandreth, Gyles
Lightbown, Sir David


Brazier, Julian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bright Sir Graham
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Andrew


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Butler, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mans, Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Merchant, Piers


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Devlin, Tim
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Dover, Den
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Powell, William (Corby)


Dunn, Bob
Rathbone, Tim


Elletson, Harold
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Richards, Rod


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Riddick, Graham


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fabricant, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Sackville, Tom


Fishburn, Dudley
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Sims, Roger


French, Douglas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Fry, Sir Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Gallie, Phil



Gardiner, Sir George
Speed, Sir Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Spink, Dr Robert


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Sproat, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Streeter, Gary


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawksley, Warren
Thomason, Roy


Heald, Oliver
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Hendry, Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Hicks, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trimble, David


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Waller, Gary


Hunt, Sr John (Ravensbourne)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hunter, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Wells, Bowen


Jenkin, Bernard
Whitney, Ray


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kellett-Bowrman, Dame Elaine
Wilkinson, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Willetts, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wilshire, David


Knapman, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Wood, Timothy


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)



Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tellers for the Noes:


Legg, Barry
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.


Lidington, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House 'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on their environmental achievements in Scotland and applauds their continued commitment to the further protection and enhancement of the environment, notably through the creation of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; supports the Government's view that United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority should be allowed to continue to undertake reprocessing of spent fuel, subject to the appropriate regulatory requirements being met, and that sound science and careful cost benefit analysis should continue to guide the Government in their consideration of issues affecting the marine environment, the matters of safety always to the fore.'.

Pensioners (Wales)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the rapidly falling standard of living of people of pensionable age in Wales; calls upon the Government to uprate the state pension to one-third of average earnings for each pensioner immediately and, over a reasonable period, to link them to average earnings as opposed to price inflation figures; and further calls upon the Government to introduce a statutory disregard of capital resources for those in need of long-term social and nursing care, to make the well-being of this section of society a priority, and to cease to marginalise their interests and concerns in such a deplorable way.
I am pleased to be opening this important debate. Some weeks ago, I had the privilege of addressing several hundred pensioners at an all-Wales rally at Llandrindod Wells in Powys. It has since become known as the "Pensioners' Parliament for Wales". I must say that the standard of debate and discussion in that parliament is far higher than that in this Chamber.
The overwhelming impression that remained with me was of respect for that large percentage of the population—a body of people who, for so long, have felt marginalised by Government, presumably because the Government believe that they cannot fight back. That conference showed me that they most certainly have the ability, integrity and will to fight back. In opening this debate, I respectfully remind the Government that 20 per cent. of the population of Wales, numbering some 581,000 people, are of pensionable age. They are therefore a powerful constituency, and their case obviously deserves a full and fair hearing.
I must repeat something that I said in my address to the rally, which is that there are two widely held popular myths about people of pensionable age. The first is that they are powerless to fight back, and I have already dealt with that. The second is that, when people reach pensionable age, in some strange and inexplicable way their potential contribution to society suddenly diminishes. There is a saying in Welsh, "Yr hen a yr, yr ifanc a dybia." I shall write it down for Hansard, as I usually do. Translated, it means, the elderly know, but the young think that they know.
On a personal note, by profession I am a solicitor.

Mr. Alex Carlile: And a very good one.

Mr. Llwyd: I am much obliged.
I am one of those at Westminster who has moved comfortably from one profession that is not held in unqualified esteem to another. When I served my articles of clerkship, effectively training to become a lawyer, I was articled to a highly respected solicitor who, even then, was of pensionable age. I should never have qualified as a solicitor without his expert guidance. That fact will remain with me for the rest of my working life. It is something for which I owe a debt of gratitude.
There is no doubt that matters affecting pensioners have not had due priority in the past 20 years. It is a disgrace that the Government appear to be so dismissive of the genuine and heartfelt concerns of such a large proportion


of modern society, and it is more so when one considers the contribution that that section of society has made to our well-being. I am reminded of the bravery and valour of those who gave everything to defeat fascism and tyranny 50 years ago. They deserve better; Plaid Cymru and I are determined that they shall have better.
It is often said that one of the marks of a truly civilised society is the way in which it treats its elderly. On that basis, the situation in the British isles leaves a great deal to be desired.
From those general remarks, I shall move to the particular. Given the time allotted, I cannot hope to refer to all policy matters affecting pensioners. I am sure that one of the main areas of concern is the level of pensions and how they have lagged dramatically in real terms in the past few years.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Llwyd: No.
The average weekly income figures are £71.51 for a single pensioner and £114.21 for a couple where the main source of income is state pension, and £185.49 and £224.41 respectively where it is not. I remind the House that the average income of pensioners in Wales is 12 per cent. lower than that for the whole of the United Kingdom. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, if he wishes to intervene—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is asleep."] Oh, he is asleep. Okay.
Under the present regime, benefit to pensioners increases with price rises, not earnings. As a consequence, pensioners who rely solely on state benefits will not share in any economic growth. Tens of thousands of pensioners in Wales are therefore set increasingly to fall behind and the gap, I am afraid, is set to widen.
Retirement pensions are inadequate. Although pensions have risen in line with price inflation, since 1980 they have fallen drastically behind average earnings.

Mr. Douglas French: I am listening with some care to the hon. Gentleman's argument and trying to follow it. What does he understand to be the definition of average earnings?

Mr. Llwyd: In Wales, the average figure is £97.13.

Mr. French: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Llwyd: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. French: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is giving way again.

Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman asked a question; I gave him the answer.
Pensioners are increasingly dependent on means-tested benefits in the form of housing benefit and income support. In 1993, 15 per cent. of retirement pensioners in Wales were in receipt of income support. While pensions

in Britain have failed to keep up with earnings, there are far more generous benefits for pensioners in other EC countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Roderick Richards): I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that average earnings in Wales were £97. Perhaps he could check his figures.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) was referring to the definition of average earnings, which is a key factor in the hon. Gentleman's motion.

Mr. Llwyd: It is not my fault if the hon. Member for Gloucester is unable to ask a question. It is not for the Minister to cover up for people who cannot ask planted questions properly.
In July, Age Concern published a report as part of its "Short change" campaign entitled "Modest But Adequate". This showed that a single pensioner would need a minimum weekly net budget of £121.08 to ensure what it describes as a modest but adequate income. Using the same formula, a pensioner couple would need a minimum of £204.49. In contrast, the most recent Government figures show that single pensioners have a net median income of £86.30 while pensioner couples have a net median income of £162.90.
The statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to review the value of pensions annually was first incorporated in the Social Security Act 1973. Under that Act, he was given scope to consider a number of factors in setting new benefit rates, including the general standard of living and other matters thought to be relevant. That was amended by section 5 of the National Insurance Act 1974 under which he is required to estimate the general level of earnings and prices in such a manner as he thinks fit and to have regard either to earnings or prices depending on which he considers more advantageous to beneficiaries.
Since 1980, earnings have tended to rise considerably faster than prices. The breaking of the all-important link between uprating and earnings in 1980 is cause for major concern. If the link had been maintained, the basic pension would be significantly higher than it is. We want an end to the tinkering; we want a basic retirement pension of not less than one third of average earnings for each pensioner so that we can uprate at a glance and not leave pensioners lagging behind.
The Government's response will inevitably be that the cost would be astronomical: restoring the link with earnings could mean that employer and employee contributions would have to rise gradually from around 18 per cent. of gross wages to around 26 per cent. We do not say that that could happen overnight, but serious thought should be given to introducing it gradually. That is a sensible approach, which I hope that the Government might be able to follow.

Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that increasing the basic pension as he wishes would reduce the scope for the Government to give special help to those who need it and act as a deterrent to people taking out private pensions? Does he accept that the average pension has increased by 50 per cent. since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979?

Mr. Llwyd: My point is that there are those who rely utterly on the state pension. I agree that they should be


targeted, but currently they are not being targeted; they are being left behind. The point is simple. I do not disagree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said, but those people are not being helped.
The rise needed to bring people up to the level to which I referred would not be greater than about 5 per cent. of GDP over the next 40 years. It is interesting that that rise would be no higher than the increase in Government expenditure over the three years from 1990 during the depths of the recession, when they increased public spending ahead of the general election. It is clearly not unaffordable. What is required is the political will to make it a reality.
Even so, were it to happen tomorrow it would be considerably less than the percentage of GDP spent in Italy, Scandinavia and France, to name but three countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons that those countries are coming to Britain to see what we are doing is because their GDP-debt ratios will be disastrous in the year 2030?

Mr. Llwyd: I am not sure about that. I am trying to concentrate on the plight of pensioners in Wales. [Interruption.] Ministers may well laugh. To them, it is probably a laughing matter.
The jewel in the state crown was always the national health service. It was, at one time, the envy of the civilised world and it had its roots in Wales. The imposition of the internal market mechanisms has all but destroyed it.

Mr. Paul Flynn: In respect of the Minister's question, has the hon. Gentleman read the chapter headed "The Demographic Myth" in the book "The Age of Entitlement", in which it is made clear and argued with great precision and knowledge that the Government have used the myth of the demographic time bomb to cut pensions and exaggerated what will happen in the next century? It is interesting that the author of that book is the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), a Government Whip.

Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that was a valuable contribution to the debate.
The imposition of internal market mechanisms has destroyed the national health service. Purchasers and providers may well be reasonable in business generally, but the national health service is—and always has been—a service, not a business. Other people and I believe that the system is top-heavy with administrators on large salaries, often people who have no connection with medicine and health care. Those bureaucrats have been funded at the expense of nurses, junior doctors, technicians, auxiliaries and the like. All these men and women are at the sharp end of service delivery and health care. Their loyalty is beyond doubt, but even they are now under strain.
I am often angered when constituents attending my surgeries say that they have waited three or four years for hip replacement surgery, suffering bouts of extreme pain-and suffering in dignified silence, in the disgraceful knowledge that, if they had paid privately, it would all have been over in a matter of months.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: All colleagues in the House will have had experience of the fact that people

who can afford to buy private health care get treated while those who cannot stay on waiting lists for long periods. Will my hon. Friend, however, also apply himself to the difficulty facing pensioners and those with no private resources at the end of their treatment in NHS hospitals? They are immediately moved out, even though they are not fit to return home, and transferred to private nursing homes or private residential homes, sometimes against their will. They have no choice in the matter.
The responsibility that used to lie with the state to provide all health care for those in need is being eroded, while the requirement to pay for private nursing homes is taking over from the responsibility that the state once had.

Mr. Llwyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, to which I shall turn in detail later. I know that one of my constituents' biggest worries is where they are going next after hospital at a time when they are in dire need.
What kind of society can accept such a state of affairs? Like all Opposition Members, I want a return to a fully funded NHS that is truly free at the point of delivery and in which waiting lists are minimal. If that takes a penny or two on income tax and a rescheduling of priorities, so be it. We must grasp the nettle now, because figures show that there are ever more elderly people in our country. I take the point that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made earlier—that there is a great deal of Government scaremongering going on. We must tackle it now.
Consultants who tell people that they will have to wait two years for an operation unless they undertake to pay privately and have it done in a month should be weeded out of the health service. If they want to do private surgery, let them do it—but not in NHS contract time. We must sweep all that away; the internal market created it. It is drastically destroying the service. I commend my party's extensive health policy document to hon. Members. Among other ideas, it would institute fully salaried doctors and consultants who would not work outside the NHS.
I am also concerned about a serious conflict of interest surrounding fundholding practices. Anyone with the slightest grasp of what is going on can see the conflict. That the Government are setting about dismantling the welfare state is, I am afraid, glaringly obvious. Poverty, especially among the elderly, is an increasingly serious problem, more so in the rural areas of Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that most rural practices that have adopted fundholding now regard it as a poisoned chalice that has forced a great deal of extra work on them, and that most fundholding doctors believe that it offers no fair advantage to any of their patients?

Mr. Llwyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is on to an accurate point. I have heard the same from GPs in my constituency. I wonder what the future of fundholding in Wales is—no doubt it will become clearer in the next 18 months or so.
In 1979, 10 per cent. of elderly people of Wales lived on an income below half the average. Today, 25 per cent. of elderly people do. Professor Julian Le Grand of the


London school of economics was reported as saying, in an article in The Guardian of 24 September, that things would be much worse without the welfare state:
Welfare services are arguably the only bulwark against increasing poverty and ill health, social misery and perhaps social instability. The question is not whether we can afford to have a properly funded welfare state; it is whether we can afford not to".
In the same article, Andrew Dilnot, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
The issue is not really about affordability. In the literal sense these services can all be paid for. What is at stake is a political decision about whether to pay for them communally or individually. If we do it communally, through taxation, then we redistribute from the affluent to the less affluent. If we do it individually, then people get what they pay for. The better off will do better, but at the price of more inequality. It is really that simple a choice.
Instead of scrambling around looking for tax cuts to try and save their own political skin in 18 months' time, the Government—if they have any social conscience—should be looking for tax increases—certainly in the higher rates.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not also true that, during the Conservative years since 1979, the gap between the rich and the poor has accelerated here faster than in any other country except New Zealand?

Mr. Llwyd: Absolutely. It must be on the Government's agenda, for it has been going on year after year. Those who were less well off 10 years ago are considerably worse off today. The Government must be well aware of their plight, but they seek to do nothing about it.
I believe that the higher rates of income tax should be rescheduled so that the health service and other social priorities can be allocated the expenditure that they deserve.

Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's fiscal and taxation policies have been directed to damaging elderly people? The shift from direct to indirect taxation has been particularly damaging to people on fixed incomes. The Government's imposition of VAT on fuel and the many other indirect taxes and VAT increases that they have brought in have hit people on fixed incomes in Wales—the unemployed and pensioners—like those in my constituency.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree. I hope to refer shortly to the problem of fuel and poverty. The effects of indirect taxation have been regressive for the elderly population.
Anything less than giving higher priority to the health service and ensuring an adequate service for the elderly and the rest of us is simply an abrogation of the Government's duty to the people whom they serve. The very notion of declining to treat a person because of his or her age fills me with disgust and rage. I hope that we will see no more of it, but I am afraid that there is a tendency to spend less on people the older they get—they are regarded as expendable. That is an obscene idea, but I fear that it is increasingly prevalent.
We also need to stem the tide of closures in NHS hospitals which has been created by the movement of funds from hospital care to community care. The Government must provide and ring-fence adequate funding for local primary health clinics within the community care programme, if it is to last. I also know

of the worries about the funding of residential care and nursing homes—it is an important topic at the moment. I think particularly of the shortfall experienced by many residents between the payments met by income support and the fees charged by private homes. People going into private or voluntary homes since 1 April, when the community care changes were introduced, have their funding met in a different way and hence do not suffer shortfalls in exactly the same way. Sally Greengross, director general of Age Concern, recently said:
It is wrong that a state-funded system should be forcing people to seek charitable help or make relatives feel obliged to pay for essential care; yet it is happening.
Continuing care and the responsibilities of the NHS are also of great concern. As we all know, if care is provided in the NHS sphere, it is free, and if it is arranged by the local social services department, the individual will be assessed on his or her ability to pay. Put simply, the NHS provides "health" care and social services "social" care, but very often that distinction is blurred and far from clear. I hope that people who are aware of the content of the debate know that they still have rights and that they can decline to move from an NHS bed if their case is valid. Too many people, when a consultant assesses them and says, "You're fit to go home," go home and think that the consultant must be right, because consultants are people in authority. People are cogs in the system, and the system, I believe, is wrong.
I have received a letter from a constituent of the Minister who will reply to the debate, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). This gentleman represents Pensioners Voice in Clwyd. I do not know whether the Minister has received the letter. Doubtless he will not act on it anyway, but were he to act on it—possibly even read it—he would see that it contains many valid and reasonable concerns. I shall refer briefly to what Mr. Alan Roberts, BSc, says in his carefully written letter. He said that it is worrying that the change in policy on NHS provision of continuing health care has come about. He continues:
The 1990 Welsh Office circular WHC(90)1, paragraph A5 in the Appendix gave the—

Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is raising an issue of a letter that allegedly is from one of my constituents. He did not inform me before the debate that he was going to raise that issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I would not regard that as necessarily a point of order for the Chair, but it is perhaps the subject of an intervention.

Mr. Llwyd: Does the Minister wish to intervene at this stage?

Mr. Richards: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has invited me to intervene. Mr. Roberts is well known to me. He corresponds with me regularly. I see him regularly at my surgeries and I have discussed with him many issues relating to pensioners and other people since I became a Member of Parliament more than three and a half years ago. It would have been a courtesy if the


hon. Gentleman had told me before the debate that he was going to raise an issue that one of my constituents, whom I know extremely well, had raised with him.

Mr. Llwyd: I know that the Minister is famed for his own personal courtesy always.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Did the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to tell Mrs. Sally Greengross that he was going to mention her as well?

Mr. Llwyd: I am afraid that I slipped up there as well.
On an obvious point, and without delaying the House, I should like to say that Mr. Roberts represents a society, so that point is quickly dispatched, as points raised by the Minister usually are.
I shall quote three paragraphs from the letter by from Roberts, as they are rather important. He said:
The 1990 Welsh Office circular WHC(90)1, para A5 in the Appendix gave the elderly chronic sick clear rights, including the right to refuse to be transferred to a nursing home if they did not wish to pay the fees.
Government Ministers"—
he refers to a certain written answer—
made it abundantly clear that patients exercising this right, if they were adjudged to need continuous nursing care, would remain in the care of the NHS, whatever form that took.
He went on:
These rights have now been cancelled in the Feb., 1995 circular WHC(95)7. In a letter to me, Mrs. B. J. Wilson, head of the Social Services Division at the Welsh Office, implied that only those patients requiring 'specialist' as opposed to 'general' nursing care in a nursing home will remain an NHS responsibility.
That is the change to which I referred.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman going to mention pensioners' fears about losing their home and inheritance, which were expressed in a pensioners' meeting that I had during the recess? I realise the difficulties that are involved in dealing with this issue; nevertheless, it is one of the most serious fears that is expressed to us time and again in every single pensioners' meeting.

Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I shall conclude my speech later on that point. It is one of the most important in the whole debate. I agree with him on that.
Another live issue was raised by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson): fuel poverty and the problems that the elderly face. It is not known precisely how many people die from hypothermia each year, but excess winter mortality in the United Kingdom has ranged from 29,000 in 1986–87 to 55,000 in 1985–86, which is up to three times greater than that experienced in countries such as Germany and Sweden, where winters are even more severe but homes are warmer. The death rate in winter for those aged 60 to 69 is on average 12 per cent. higher than in the summer; this increases to 17 per cent. for those in their 70s and 26 per cent. for those aged 80 and over. It has been estimated that there are 8,000 excess deaths for every degree celsius that the winter is colder than average.
Older people are more likely to experience the circumstances that cause fuel poverty: low income, poor quality housing with little or no insulation, and reliance on expensive—often inefficient—heating systems. They are also likely to have greater need for heating than other groups because they spend more time at home. The

general household survey in 1993 found that 31 per cent. of single, retired households mainly dependent on the state pension do not have central heating. "Cold Comfort", a national survey of 900 people over the age of 65 by the Age Concern institute of gerontology, published in February 1993, found that 26 per cent. had no loft insulation, compared to 10 per cent. of the general population. Some 18 per cent. compared to 6 per cent. did not have hot water tank insulation, and 64 per cent. compared to 60 per cent. had no double glazing.
I am an executive member of the all-party warm homes campaign, and there is a growing appreciation in the House of the fuel poverty issue. According to the World Health Organisation, the minimum bedroom temperature should be 21 deg C. A recent Age Concern survey showed last winter that 91 per cent. of pensioners fall below that level. Hypothermia is indeed a menace. I think that we need VAT to be zero-rated and not imposed in such a regressive manner. It is truly regressive because those on modest incomes spend a far higher proportion of their incomes just to keep warm than other people. I want to see a standard cold weather payment system over the whole winter, beginning on 1 October and ending on 31 March. That would be a great step forward, rather than tinkering with thermometers, as now seems to happen.
I also believe, as a matter of good sense, that we should extend the range of measures for home insulation, with mandatory council renovation grants for low-income elderly home owners whose heating systems are deficient, and an improved compensation package. The all-party group will meet tomorrow and throughout the year. We hope to enhance some of these thoughts and to push the debate further. The cold weather payment is inadequate and pathetic and in no way makes up for the deficiency.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government really wanted to be portrayed as caring, they could zero-rate insulation materials in the forthcoming Budget? Is it not completely ludicrous that VAT on insulation materials is 17.5 per cent. but only 8 per cent. on the fuel consumed?

Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely, and I am sure that that would also create jobs. It is good common sense.
Much has been heard this year of the plight of war widows. There were significant improvements for war widows in the 1970s, but the situation should now be reconsidered urgently.
Another huge issue is law and order—the so-called battle for the streets. We all fondly recall the time when the front doors of houses in villages and towns were held open by a stone. Those days, alas, are gone, but we could realistically see them again. It is no use the Home Secretary talking about boot camps. What we really need is better financing for the police to enable them to extend community policing—by far the most effective but also the most expensive form of policing.
In that regard, I am sure that prevention is far better than cure. We need to prioritise spending on policing and on building good relations between youngsters and the police. We need to encourage young people to make their voice heard, to take pride in their localities and to play a full role in community life.
Time and again I hear, especially from the elderly, that the village bobby has gone and that they do not know to whom to turn. I do not wish to scaremonger, but even in


a village such as Betws-y-coed in my constituency, the elderly are saying that it is risky to go out after dark. I remember that village when there was never any risk, despite the fact that it was on a main trunk road—the A5. There is much that can be done, and the Government should he doing it, to make the elderly in society more comfortable.
I want to see free or reduced cost travel on public transport for the elderly and I want it to be extended. Like many hon. Members, I have often been lobbied on the subject of television licences. Many of us have argued long and hard for an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 and I am sure that the campaign will continue. There is a case for a free television licence for the elderly and the retired.
I also want to see the abolition of standing charges for gas, water and electricity for the elderly. Again, they are often disproportionately high in comparison with the actual values consumed—another point referred to by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).
Some three years ago, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on water charges. It attempted to secure a water charges benefit for the elderly and two other classes of society. We need a change and that change is overdue. That matter was brought to my attention quite dramatically by a constituent of mine from Bala, an elderly lady who said that she had never been in debt in her life and that the prospect of gas and electricity bills and, in particular, spiralling water bills, was making her ill. She was visibly anxious and upset and, when I noted the details of her latest water rates demand, I saw that she was paying £5 per annum more than my household where two of us are wage earners—and we have two teenage children whom I am sure use a great deal more water than that elderly lady.
The truth is that there is no regard for the all-important factor of ability to pay, and that is iniquitous. Even the despised poll tax had some regard to that principle. The Government will undoubtedly say that that is nothing to do with them, but it was the Government who privatised the utilities—those bare necessities on which life depends. It is no use hiding behind the water companies. The Government should intervene, and I commend my Bill to the Minister for reconsideration.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the elderly being deprived of their homes. That is a serious problem. It is estimated that some 40,000 family homes in the United Kingdom are sold each year just to meet the cost of care—note the use of the word "home" rather than house or property. People, in the autumn of their lives, are subjected to the ordeal of having their home—which they have worked hard to pay for—taken by the state which had guaranteed them state-funded care from the cradle to the grave. They are industrious people who have paid their dues in the form of taxes and national insurance and who were relying on the contract with the state. Now it has been decided to move the goalposts and, effectively, make them pay twice. That is disgraceful and cannot be justified.
The Government must reconsider urgently. I strongly suggest that the home be kept out of the equation altogether and that the £8,000 savings limit or capital threshold should be raised considerably. I have a figure of £20,000 in mind, but it should be at least doubled so

that the elderly can live with dignity. I understand that that is a live issue in Cabinet and change is overdue. I hope that the Government will conclude that the current position is untenable and should be changed without delay.
How can the Government, who are actively considering the abolition of inheritance tax, not accede to that call for change? It is viewed by many people across the political spectrum as an absolute scandal, which I trust will shortly be addressed. If the Prime Minister's nest egg speech was anything other than empty rhetoric, we should see much-needed change shortly.
I have two outstanding points to make. First, the Government should reintroduce free eye testing and dental treatment for the elderly. They should also provide dental treatment for all in society. In my constituency, as elsewhere in Wales, there are areas with no dentists. The position is complex. Some steps have been taken, for which I give due credit, but more should be done. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the matter. That is an acute problem in many areas in Wales.
The elderly are put off going to the dentist because they believe that that will be expensive, they do not have the money to pay and they are worried about huge bills. Opticians tell me that they come across glaucoma and similar conditions more often now and more often at an advanced stage because people feel that they cannot afford to have their eyes tested. Such conditions can lead to blindness. The problem is becoming acute. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider the question of free eye testing and, in particular, free dentistry for the elderly in Wales.
Many pensioners in Wales are concerned about mobility. Efforts must be made to assist local government in the provision of cheaper public transport for the elderly.
If all this sounds like a continuous moan or, as the Secretary of State for National Heritage would have it, whingeing, I make no apology. It is simply impossible to discuss the current situation of pensioners in Wales without turning to a catalogue of real and serious complaints.
I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree when I say that it is high time that pensioners' concerns received due priority. My party intends to do just that, and I am sure that other Opposition parties will do likewise.
I want society's natural respect for the elderly to be translated into action. The younger generation owes much to today's senior citizens and it is about time that we set about paying off that debt of gratitude.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
welcomes the rise in pensioners' living standards throughout Wales and the rest of the UK since this Government took office; applauds the fact that pensioners' average incomes have increased by 51 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared with only 5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979; welcomes the extra help, amounting to £1.2 billion per year above the rate of inflation since 1988, awarded through improvements to income-related benefits for pensioners; believes it is far better to target benefit resources on those in the most need; applauds the fact that this Government has provided a solid basis for income in retirement by maintaining its pledge to


increase basic retirement pension at least in line with prices; and welcomes wholeheartedly the wider and substantial benefits delivered to pensioners by this Government's policies, particularly the control of inflation.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the position of pensioners in Wales. I assure the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that I am no less concerned than he is about Welsh pensioners—indeed, about all pensioners. He was right to pay tribute to those who fought so bravely in the second world war to protect us all from fascism, as I know hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that he is a solicitor. As a lawyer, he will be acquainted with the well-known legal expression, "Do not let the facts get in the way of a good speech." I do not intend to start by commenting on whether it was a good speech—that is for others to judge—but he certainly did not let the facts get in the way.
Let us look first at the hon. Gentleman's central argument that pensioners' living standards are falling rapidly. That is just plain wrong. Pensioners' real incomes have risen by an average of 51 per cent. since 1979. Furthermore, when the hon. Gentleman referred to the average income of individuals—the earners—he referred to what is now £301 per week gross in Wales.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heald: I should like to make some progress first.
No one listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy would have known that pensioners' real incomes have outpaced those of earners in Wales since 1979: pensioners' average real incomes have increased by 5 per cent. more.

Mr. Llwyd: The figure that I gave was £97.01, one third of £301. That is one fact on which I did not slip up.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman may be a little confused. The figure for average earnings in Wales is £301, not £97. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have a little difficulty with the question. Pensioners' real incomes in Wales have risen by more than those of earners. That is the point that undercuts the hon. Gentleman's entire argument about Welsh living standards.

Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heald: In a moment.
The fact that there has been a guarantee of index linking of retirement pensions is important; but the overwhelmingly important issue is the way in which private provision has been encouraged, and has supplemented pensioners' real incomes. That is one of the great successes of the current Government.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister disaggregate that figure, and reveal the effect on those who depend purely on state pensions?

Mr. Heald: The lowest amount that could be received by a pensioner couple on income support, with no private or occupational pensions, is just over £100 per week, excluding the cost of renting their homes. The difference is substantial. The Government's achievement has been to encourage private provision and occupational pensions: as a result, pensioners have improved their position. Meanwhile, their savings have retained their value.

[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) makes his comments, but under Labour, pensioners' savings were ravaged by high inflation. The present Government have presided over the longest period of sustained low inflation since 1961.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): And Labour pinched the bonus.

Mr. Heald: Indeed.
Had it not been for that long period of low inflation, pensioners' savings would be nowhere near as strong as they are today, and their investment income would not be coming through.
Pensioners in the private sector are more secure than they were because of the reforms in the Pensions Act 1995, and spending on health and care services has risen rapidly. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that living standards had fallen; he was wrong to say that average earnings had exceeded the income of pensioners; and he was wrong to say that nothing had been done about heating. I shall deal with each of those issues shortly.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that, in 1995, pensioners who are dependent on their state pensions are relatively far poorer than those who have the advantage of private pension provision, and that the difference is greater than it has ever been?

Mr. Heald: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a trite point. It is obvious that pensioners who take out private occupational pensions—the Government have encouraged them to do so, and 5.6 million more are doing so—are in a better position than those who do not.
In Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, pensioners' average incomes have risen at today's prices. In 1979, the figure was £95.60 per week; in 1993—I am quoting real figures—it was £138.60. That is the latest information that we have. Across the United Kingdom and in Wales, pensioners' average incomes have risen; and, if housing costs are taken into account, the position is even stronger. The increase is explained by index linking of the retirement pension, by the impact of income support and by the Government's policy of encouraging occupational and personal pension provision. Retirement pensions have maintained the value that they had in line with inflation, and constitute an essential building block in retirement income.

Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy): Will my hon. Friend confirm that eight out of 10 pensioners have income from other sources—occupational pensions, savings or investments?

Mr. Heald: That is true. More than half the pensioners in Wales now receive occupational pensions, amounting on average to £74 per week. A substantial proportion—two thirds—now receive income from investment, averaging £37.40 per week. That improvement is the result of the Government's policies.
We should not forget that the approach of targeting help through income support means that the pensioners who are least able to make provision for themselves have a benefit that has been uprated ahead of inflation by £1.2 billion since 1988. As I have said, the lowest rate for a pensioner couple receiving income support is now more than £100 a week, and that couple's housing costs will also be met.
Occupational and personal pension provision has dramatically increased the incomes of pensioners in the United Kingdom and Wales. There are 5.6 million individual personal pension holders in the United Kingdom. That has not happened as a result of coincidence; it has happened as a result of low inflation, which has made saving worth while. As I have said, we have experienced the longest period of sustained low inflation since 1961. The encouragement of occupational and personal pensions, and low taxes for individuals, have enabled people to choose how to spend their incomes and to take out such pensions.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank the Minister for giving way at last. I just wanted to know whether he had any figures on the disposable income of pensioners in Wales and on the effect of VAT on fuel on that income.

Mr. Heald: It is right that the increases in relation to VAT on fuel were made across the board, but the effect on pensioners was mitigated by a substantial package of help, which was introduced, as the hon. Gentleman should know, in April 1994 for all pensioners, most disabled people and all people on income-related benefits. Fifteen million people benefit from that aid package. In 1994–95, the Government provided £420 million of extra help. That will rise to around £700 million extra during this financial year.
The Government are not in a position to dictate the charges that are made by various industries. Where possible, however, we try to influence the industry and, if necessary, increase or introduce grants to offset the costs. Value added tax is a broad-based tax: the supply of most goods and services is subject to VAT at the standard rate. This is the only sector where a lower rate applies. Standing charges are not part payment for supplies of domestic fuel and power-which would mean that they would be covered by the reduced rate-so they are taxed at 17.5 per cent.
The Government's policy on pensions has brought the prospect of increased prosperity to millions. We have more employer occupational pension schemes and more people taking responsibility for their retirement income. We have built a solid foundation of funded pension provision that is the envy of the rest of Europe, and we have done that through providing more choice and opportunity. That will remain the Government's policy. It is not "deplorable"—the word in the motion. It does not marginalise pensioners; it places their welfare at the heart of Government thinking.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised the issue of health and care. We recognise the importance to older people of the care services provided by the national health service and by local authorities. We have been active in our reforms to ensure that the right services reach the right people at the right time. The patients charter has set exacting standards for the NHS in hospital and community services. That is shown in Wales by the rise in the workload of hospitals. The number of cases that are being dealt with by Welsh hospitals has increased dramatically year on year.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I hope that the Minister accepts that I am assisting him in this

intervention to enable him to consider various matters, but does he not accept that, although there has been a substantial increase in the throughput of people dealt with in hospitals, there has also been a substantial increase in return visits by people because they have been sent home too early?

Mr. Heald: I do not accept that argument. The figures for new out-patients are up by 5 per cent. year on year—from 601,827 to 635,984. The figures on day cases are up from 204,398 to 238,696—an increase of 17 per cent. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to make his point in the way that he does, but the statistics show a clear rise in the number of patients being treated.
The national health service is more focused than ever on providing primary health care. When I heard the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy criticising the arrangements in place for general practitioners and fundholding in particular, I thought that he was ignoring patients' interests. Patients now receive the sort of health checks that we all know about, and the sort of care that doctors provide as fundholders. That system is clearly providing new benefits. It puts GPs at the forefront of caring for their patients. It is nothing other than a direct benefit not only for pensioners, but for all patients.
As in the rest of the United Kingdom, people in Wales are living longer and staying healthier for longer. Thirty years ago, Her Majesty the Queen would send out a dozen telegrams a year to centenarians; this year I believe the figure is 3,000. That improvement in health care and in longevity is the result of the Government's health care policies and of the income that is being provided.
Likewise, if one considers community care, our policies mean that more people are receiving the care that they need in their own homes, in residential care or in nursing homes in their communities. Pensioners are now involved to a much greater extent in decisions about their own care, what they need and how it is delivered, and local community charters will further those improvements.

Mr. Llwyd: What would the Minister say if he had constituents, as I have in Bala and Dolgellau in my constituency, who cannot receive any assistance from a dentist within 50 or 60 miles? Is that delivery of primary health care? What will the Minister do to ensure that those people have treatment under the national health service?

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the family health services authorities in every part of the country can provide details of dentists who work on the national health service and I commend him to take that course. He seems to be suggesting another expensive pledge in what I describe as one of the most expensive wish lists that any country has had placed on it.
Often, there are misunderstandings in relation to the issue of charging for residential care. Local authorities are required to charge up to the full economic cost of residential care, depending on the individual's means. The charging rules are closely aligned with income support rules—both capital and income is taken into account by the local authority when assessing an individual's ability to pay. Capital includes property and savings; income includes most social security benefits, occupational pensions, trust income and earnings.
If the individual owns a home, the social services department will generally take its value into account when it considers capital assets, but it must ignore its value if


one of the following people is still living there: a husband, a wife, a partner, a relative aged 60 or more, a relative under the age of 60 if the individual supports them, and a relative who is incapacitated. Social services may also ignore the value of the property in other circumstances, such as if the person who has been caring for the individual still lives there.
The Government's view has consistently been that people who can pay for residential care should be expected to do so, taking into account their ability to pay, but it is worth bearing in mind the rules that protect the position if someone remains in the home. It is only in circumstances where the home would otherwise be empty that it is taken into account in the calculation of residential care costs.
Residential and nursing homes set charges that represent the individual's on-going accommodation, food and care needs, just as if they were living in their own homes. It was never intended that individuals should be released entirely from the cost of their accommodation and upkeep.
In principle, it is right that people should look to their own resources before they look to the taxpayer to meet the cost of care. In that way, resources are targeted where they are most needed. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will know that there is a capital disregard in these cases, including the value of the home in certain circumstances such as those that I have outlined. The Government, however, keep those rules under constant review.
He will also know that we have recently announced an important change to the way in which occupational pension income is dealt with when assessing the means of another member of the couple who goes into residential care. From next April, spouses remaining at home will have an automatic entitlement to half the occupational pension when their husband or wife enters residential care, recognising their continuing financial need. Of course, there is a discretion in the local authority up to that time to deal with it in that way.
The Government's objective will always be to target help in the most effective way on the people who need it most. There has been much speculation in recent weeks. All I can say is that the matter is being reviewed. I have no announcement to make and no hints to drop. I suspect that if I had any hints, I would not be giving them to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—[Interruption.]That was not meant in a churlish spirit. The issues should remain under review and that is what is happening.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy suggests increasing the retirement pension. His motion calls for large increases in state pensions—immediate uprating to one third of average earnings followed by a restoration of the earnings link. I should like to commend the hon. Gentleman. At least he was open about it and revealed what his policies would be. I should also commend his decisiveness. At least he has plumped for a policy. The same cannot be said for others and it would be interesting to hear in due course how the matter is being resolved on the Labour Front Bench.
All serious commentators—including the World bank, the National Association of Pension Funds and the Institute of Fiscal Studies—have recognised that to increase the value of the state pension, which is paid regardless of income and goes to virtually all people over

pension age in the United Kingdom and in Wales, is not a sensible use of taxpayers' money. It would cost more than £22 billion in 1996 to uprate the basic retirement pension to one third of average earnings. That is equivalent to 12p on standard rate income tax. Even at current rates, restoring the earnings link would cost £9.6 billion, or more than 6p on income tax.
Such an increase would mean an extra £15 a week for the average national insurance payer. Even if the cost were divided between the employer and the employee, the employee would make an extra payment of more than £8 per week. It is worth bearing it in mind that figures on income and expenditure for the United Kingdom, including Wales, show that the group who are hardest pressed are those aged between 30 and 50 who have greater commitments. Increasing taxation levels on them in that way would be not only ruinous, but extremely unfair to people on modest incomes who have an expectation of tax levels at approximately the present level.
In Wales, the balance between pensioners and active members of the work force is slightly lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole, so if Wales were to become an independent country—as the hon. Gentleman believes it should—the costs would be even higher than the very high figures that I have already outlined. Such a policy would be bad for the people of Wales and bad for those on modest incomes who are paying taxes and national insurance and I do not believe that it is what pensioners want. It would also have the effect of undercutting occupational pension schemes and personal pension provision—one of the successes of the Government's policy.
The issues put forward by the hon. Gentleman—and I shall go into them in a little more detail—are the policies of opposition; it is a wish list drawn up without regard to responsibility or cost.
Has the hon. Gentleman really thought of the consequences of requiring people across the United Kingdom—and indeed in Wales—to pay an extra 12p on income tax or £15 on national insurance? Where would he find the money? He has not thought it through seriously. He is pandering to the interests of a group that has a wish list of its own, but that is not how a Government can approach the matter. The hon. Gentleman should rethink the matter and perhaps he will.
Looking at the other side of the coin, increasing employers' national insurance contributions by some £7 or £8 per week—which would divide the cost—would put an intolerable burden on business. It would damage those businesses in Wales which are having economic success and providing jobs for people who need them. Again, the hon. Gentleman should consider the matters before making wild promises which pander to a populist instinct and are not responsible policies.
By contrast, the Government have thought the issues through. We are not in the business of making promises we cannot keep. We are in the business of looking to the future and taking some of the decisions that are often hard to make. They are not the easy decisions that parties can make in opposition.
One of the Government's successes has been to defuse the demographic time bomb. Across the world, Japan, Germany, Italy and France all have debt to GDP ratios at the year 2030 that are almost disastrous. The percentage


figure for Japan is 290 to 315 per cent. of GDP; for Germany, 95 to 105 per cent.; for Italy, 125 to 145 per cent.; and for France, 90 to 105 per cent. of GDP.
It is instructive to read what the OECD said about Britain in its survey earlier this year:
In the United Kingdom with the advantages of a good starting position and a public pension scheme that runs only a small deficit, net debt as a percentage of GDP falls to very low levels and by 2030 even turns into a small net asset position.
It continues:
The assumption of unchanged policy for spending and taxes may well not be realistic, policies might tend to be less restrictive with the evolution of debt being less favourable.
I believe that the OECD is talking about the prospect—unlikely though it may be—that an opposition party might form a Government and do some of the disastrous things that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
At the moment, countries across Europe are looking at the way in which we have made state pension provision affordable and encouraged private and occupational pension schemes. It would be typical of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman's party at a time when we have got it right in terms of affordability to say, "Let us throw it all away." That is what it amounts to—throwing away the advantages we have and the position described by an independent commentator, the OECD.
Our policy is to target resources on those who cannot help themselves and allow those who can the flexibility and freedom to make their own choices.
Turning for a moment to the Labour party, I said that the same could not be said of the official Opposition—that they had nailed their colours to the mast when it came to pension policy. The Labour party continues to keep its options open—or, alternatively, it is floundering in a sea of confusion.
At its party conference in 1993, the Labour party was looking forward to the end of means-testing for pensioners. But by 1995, apparently without changing step, we see the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) embracing the Commission for Social Justice's proposal for a scheme which effectively means-tests every pensioner in the country at retirement age. Not, of course, that we can be sure what retirement age would be under Labour, as the Labour party has committed itself to a flexible decade of retirement without explaining what the age range would be and the way in which it would be centred. If it means what we think it means, it amounts to reducing the retirement age for most people to the age of 60, at huge cost to the country—£12 billion.
It is right that we should hear from the Opposition spokesman about exactly what is Opposition policy. After all, an alternative option is that proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who suggests that there should be an end to all means-testing, and compulsory private pensions for all. We would like to hear tonight exactly what is Labour party policy on pensions because people outside the Chamber might not have a clear idea. We certainly do not.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy attacked NHS health care. We have studied activity levels in hospitals in Wales. Is he seriously suggesting that trust hospitals are not more efficient than their predecessors? Is he seriously suggesting that general practitioners are

not doing more for their patients and giving them extra health checks than they did in the past? Is he seriously denying all the improvements that have been made since 1979?
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that nothing has been done to meet the heating costs of pensioners, but a whole range of policies have been introduced. For example, only last year the home energy efficiency scheme more than doubled its expenditure from £35 million a year to £100 million a year, which has benefited 600,000 households. When the hon. Gentleman talks to pensioners in his constituency about insulation, surely he tells them about the Government scheme which would give them help.

Mr. Llwyd: They say it is rubbish.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman may say it is rubbish, but 600,000 householders have benefited from that scheme because the Government have provided help. The cold weather payment scheme has also been improved, which has helped pensioners, as does the package of help concerning VAT on fuel.
The hon. Member also raised the issue of law and order. He ignored the fact that the Government have increased the number of police officers by 16,000. He also ignored the measures that we introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, increased penalties and further measures on DNA testing, to make it more difficult for criminals to get away with it. They will help in the battle against law and order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Law and order?"] I meant the battle against crime. Those measures will also help to ensure better law and order.
It is no coincidence that in each of the past two years we have seen a 5 per cent. fall in crime levels—the first time for 40 years.

Mr. Llwyd: A fall in reported crime.

Mr. Heald: That is not true. There has been a reduction in vehicle crime. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people do not report the theft of their motor cars? If they do not, they do not get their insurance money. Of course they report such crime.
There have been no changes to the methods of reporting crime in the past two years, yet criminal activity has fallen for the first time in 40 years, and at a faster rate than ever recorded. It is time the hon. Gentleman gave a little credit to the Government for that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues, but I do not want to trespass on the good will of the House by dealing with each of them. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales who will be winding-up will no doubt wish to deal with some of the outstanding issues.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy put forward a whole range of propositions as though they were fact, but the truth is that not one of them has stood up to close examination. The standard of living of pensioners is not falling; it is rising. The average earnings of individuals in society are being outpaced by increases in pensions. He should accept that the Government have a deep commitment to the well-being of pensioners. That commitment is a realistic one, unlike the Opposition's wish list.
When we took office in 1979, we inherited a society in which pensioner interests were marginalised. Under Labour, pensioner incomes went up by a little more than 5 per cent., but they have gone up by 51 per cent. under the Conservative Government. It was a society in which impoverishment and dependency was a reality for the pensioner. That was deplorable. That is not the case now. With the provision of personal and occupational pensions, the retirement pension has been protected as the foundation of retirement income. Inflation has been brought under control and it no longer robs pensioners of their savings. We have targeted income on the least well-off pensioners, and offered all pensioners more choice.
I believe that the Government's case is strong when they argue that pensioners have been protected by them and given new opportunities through freedom and choice.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and his colleagues on giving us the opportunity to debate pensioners in Wales.
The Minister began his speech by complaining that the hon. Gentleman had certainly not let the facts get in the way of a good speech. I must say that the Minister has failed to let a good speech get in the way of the facts about what is happening to a significant percentage of pensioners in Wales.
The Minister treated us to an exegesis on the advantages of private pension schemes. I wholeheartedly agree that those advantages exist, and I even share his aspiration that in due course every pensioner should have a guaranteed and portable pension scheme with a private element included in it, but he cannot escape from the reality—the truth that we see, or at least Opposition Members see, every weekday and every weekend in Wales: that many Welsh pensioners, especially those in rural areas, live in real poverty. They do not have private pension schemes, and perhaps they are the historical remnant of people who will rely on the state pension.
I suggest to the Minister, however, that if they are an historical remnant, they will remain so for a long time to come, and the Government must pay proper attention to that. Many pensioners fall into the poverty trap that has been created by the income support limits in particular. For many old people, who have greater needs than younger people for heat, clothing and transport provided by others, the poverty trap can sometimes be a death trap.

Mr. Heald: The hon. and learned Gentleman sees before him a motion that calls for huge increases in public expenditure. Does he support it?

Mr. Carlile: I am sure that the Minister will have taken the trouble to study the Liberal Democrat policy document entitled "The Age of Opportunity". I do not propose to weary the House by reading from it now, and I will hand the Minister the copy that I have in my hand. It deals with what is now called the "third age". We do not agree with everything in the motion, but it is certainly our view that the Government are failing to address the needs of the group I have just mentioned.
It is worth recalling the words of Lloyd-George in his celebrated speech on the 1908 Budget. He said:
How we treat our old people is the crucial test of our national quality. A nation that lacks gratitude to those who have honestly worked for her in the past whilst they had the strength to do so, does not deserve a future, for she has lost her sense of justice and her instinct of mercy.
It behoves us to treat those words, albeit in the somewhat florid language of the turn of the century, as having some resonance in the public mind. They certainly have resonance in the minds of pensioners who complain to us constantly about their lot.
I invite the Government in particular to pay greater attention to the problems faced by pensioners who live alone. The percentage of elderly people living alone, many of whom are women because of the differing mortality rates of men and women, has risen from 35 per cent. in 1971 to 45 per cent. in 1991, when I believe it was last measured. I am sure that the whole House would commend the fact that that figure is evidence of more pensioners retaining their independence in their very old age and staying in their own homes. That is to be encouraged.
Indeed, I suggest to the Government that it is very good value for public money to keep pensioners in their own homes, because it is cheaper to provide domiciliary help for pensioners than to keep them in public or private sector care homes. More important, it enables pensioners such as my elderly mother, and no doubt the elderly mothers of a number of other hon. Members, to retain what they value most: their independence—sometimes their fierce independence.
State pension dependency, which is high in Wales, especially in rural Wales, is a threat to such independence. The Minister cited the figure of one third of pensioners in Wales being dependent on the state pension, but in rural areas such as my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy the figure is more like 40 per cent.
The Minister's eloquent and entirely justifiable paean of praise for the private sector and what it can provide to those who have bought private pensions from insurance companies will resonate among pensioners with a dull thud. Indeed, even where, for example, farmers or small business people in rural areas have participated in private pension schemes, the contribution made by the schemes has been very small and may have made the difference only between ensuring that the pensioner had some extra support from the state and had no extra support from the state. It can often be the very thing that draws them into the poverty trap.
The problem is worse in Wales, where the percentage of people of pensionable age is higher. About 20 per cent. of the Welsh population are of pensionable age—almost 2 per cent. more than in England. In some areas, such as the constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—I notice that he is present—the statistics suggest that 28 to 30 per cent. of the population are of pensionable age, so the problem is heightened in Wales.
Another group is often forgotten by the Government: those who care—very often unpaid—for the very elderly. Research suggests that there are 340,000 unpaid carers in this country, of whom 80,000 work for more than 20 hours without receiving a penny.
The Government have, to their credit, supported a private Member's Bill that provides for the recognition of carers. That is all very well, but we should like to hear


when they will come up with the money to give carers true recognition, which in principle they have accepted. They should do more than pay lip service to carers. Carers give very good value for money because they often save the Government having to spend money on keeping elderly people in care homes.
The 1991 census showed that social conditions are often lower in Wales. Pensioners are more likely to have unsatisfactory housing in Wales than in England. That creates special problems. It is a shocking fact that, in 1995, almost 3 per cent. of pensioners in Wales have no inside lavatory. That is not acceptable. Almost a quarter of pensioners have no form of controllable heating that can be set to their needs.
I say to Ministers, especially the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who will reply to the debate—that the way in which renovation schemes have operated in Wales, particularly in the past three or four years, has led to a great shortage of money to meet need where it is greatest. Are the Government satisfied with the way in which grants for home renovations have constantly run out? In my constituency, the waiting list is, I think, eight years. Will the Government do something to help pensioners who, for example, do not even have an inside lavatory?
Old age, after all, should surely be a time for freedom, enjoyment, relaxation and reflection, which those of us who are fortunate enough to meet elderly people during our work as Members of Parliament have passed to us—usually to our great profit. It saddens me that the stock in trade of many conversations with elderly people who have much wisdom to contribute to our discussions starts with complaints about having to survive—about living on the breadline. We owe our pensioners more than that.
One area in which pensioners have faced particular difficulty, despite many benign and hard-working local authorities in Wales, is community care. I spoke about that recently in a debate in the House on 2 March and I shall not repeat what I said. There is a £71 million shortfall in the funding of community care in Wales and it has been drawn to the attention of Ministers time and again. It would be nice if we were to hear a helpful reaction for a change.
The experience of, for example, Gwynedd county council—which was praised by the Audit Commission for its community care—is that to provide an acceptable standard, it must overspend. It has been faced with an overspend of more than £1.2 million. The lesson that one draws from that is that it seems that the Government quite rightly want excellent community care, but are not prepared to pay for it. It seems that they are speaking with a forked tongue on that issue.
The cost of care in care homes has already been raised. Some pensioners who leave hospital are being sold to the lowest bidder. They are either being sent to the cheapest care home that can be found, if they are well enough, or to the cheapest nursing home, if they are ill enough.
Although there are some excellent private sector care and nursing homes in Wales, there are also some awful examples. The system of inspection, scrutiny and accreditation is not good enough. People are suffering as a result, yet they are the people for whom we should have the most respect: the elderly.
There is the whole question of the way in which capital is removed from elderly people. Although the Minister gave us some slightly labyrinthine hints of a review—no doubt as part of the bread-and-circus politics which will start on 28 November and entertain us until we have a general election—the situation at the moment is unacceptable.
Is it really right that a pensioner should have to spend all their hard-earned, hard-saved capital down to £8,000? Would not it be fairer if the Government took a different view of that issue and recognised that those savings have played an important part in our national wealth and the sustaining of the economy? Should not the Government take the view that it would be better to raise the cap significantly than to abolish inheritance tax, just to grab a few middle-class votes at the general election? I can assure the Minister that the elderly people of this country, especially those honest, decent, respectable people who have modest capital, but not huge capital, would appreciate such a change of policy.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, to explain why there is discrimination against local authority care homes in terms of the way in which residents are charged. It goes like this. If one goes into one of Powys county council's very good care homes, one is charged significantly more for care than if one goes into the average private sector home situated in the part of Powys that I represent. I realise that this is because the charges are made on a real-cost basis. However, many of the private care homes—not all of them—provide a lower standard of service, there are fewer staff, there are fewer experienced staff, there are fewer shifts

Mr. Richards: indicated dissent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Jonathan Evans): indicated dissent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlile: I see two, perhaps two and a half Ministers on the Treasury Bench. What a lot of Ministers there are on the Treasury Bench at the moment shaking their heads. I issue an invitation for them to come to Montgomeryshire and to have a look. They should come and make the comparison. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), shaking his head. He may have criticisms of the county care homes in his constituency, but those criticisms would not apply in mine.
The fact is that people who go into county care homes are having to pay £30 or £40 a week more for being residents there and there can be only one reason for that. What could that reason be? The only reason can be that the Government want the county care homes to go into the private sector or into a trust arrangement that they can regard as the private sector, thus taking yet more of that important community function away from elected representatives. That view has been expressed to me by social workers and by councillors of no political persuasion—independent councillors, some of great experience. It has been expressed to me by councillors of political persuasion too and it is a widely held view. The Government should not run away from the reality of it.
The opportunity to debate policy on pensioners in Wales is welcome. I fear, however, that at the end of the debate, we shall not have made much progress in persuading the Government that pensioners deserve a better deal. I predict that pensioners will become a much more vocal force in this country than they are already. I predict that they will become a much more political force in this country than they are already. I predict that the Government will reap a sorry reward as a result.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am probably one of the best qualified to speak in this debate as I am a Welsh pensioner and I have been so since July this year. I have not been refused treatment by anybody in the national health service as yet and I am still working, as so many pensioners do in Wales and elsewhere. Perhaps that is just as well, as we are growing in numbers, as various hon. Members have said in this debate. We are aware of the danger of becoming an excessive burden on the working people of this country—the demographic time bomb to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), referred.
I am glad that we have passed the Pensions Act 1995, which will equalise the state pension at age 65 for men and women, not in my time perhaps, but from 2010. That is a serious point. I am told that if the state pension ages were not changed, there would be just 2.2 working people per pensioner by 2030 compared with 3.3 now. The total number of pensioners will have risen from 10.5 million to 15.5 million. Those who have said that pensioners will become increasingly a political force are, I am sure, quite right, not just because I have just joined them.
Those figures are, of course, based on current projections; I am not sure that we have solved the problem completely. Projections can change, economic conditions can change and other factors, including the political situation, may change. All that may make it difficult for us to sustain our elderly people as we would wish. I was, however, delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister describe the situation that confronts this country in terms of the debt to gross domestic product ratio and to hear him say how much better the prospects are for the United Kingdom than for many other countries. I am also glad that we had last year's assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that the basic pension is there and rock solid, and that we have no intention of removing it now or in the foreseeable future.
Although more than eight in 10 pensioners now have income from other sources—an occupational pension, savings or investment—the state pension is still important for many people, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) stressed. The figures, of course, may be rather different in Wales. The answer is to target improvements in pensions and that too is very much part of Government policy, as is their commitment to protect the value of the pension against price rises.
During my 25 years in this House, I have known times when pensioners have really been up in arms and when the pensioners' voice was to be heard loud and clear. Those times were invariably the times of high inflation under the previous Labour Government, when pensioners saw the value of their savings being eroded. My only disappointment this evening is to have to record that Plaid
Cymru supported that Government. Successive Conservative Administrations have kept inflation low, and pensioners have undoubtedly benefited from that. I do not hear howls of complaint from pensioners or receive the flood of letters that one used to receive from pensioners in the days when inflation ran high.
As hon. Members have said, I have a high proportion of pensioners in my electorate. That does not mean, of course, that there are no concerns; some of the concerns expressed this evening are very real. There is concern in Gwynedd about community care and about the fact that the council appears to have exceeded its budget by more than £1 million. That is causing great concern to pensioners in my constituency. The £8,000 limit, too, causes concern, and one hopes that the Government will be able to do something about it in due course.
Yes, obviously we would like improvements; but not more than the country can afford. The real revelation this evening—I am glad that it has come out—is that if we were to follow the line proposed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy when he moved the motion, there would be a bill of about £22 billion, which would mean not a penny or two on income tax but as much as 12p extra.

Mr. Llwyd: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that others wish to speak.
The Plaid Cymru motion calls for a direct link with earnings. I have heard that populist demagogic cry from the Labour and Liberal Benches from time to time over the years, but not recently. The Labour party, certainly, has changed its tack.
At the Labour party conference the Leader of the Opposition said that Labour was
looking at ways for people to put together income from public and private sources to guarantee a minimum standard of living for our pensioners.
So far, so good. He continued:
The aim of the policy is to remove the stigma of means testing for ever.
How on earth can one do that? I find the statement confusing, and I am sure that the Minister does too. How can one find out whether people have made prudent provision for retirement without some kind of means test?
Whatever the outcome, does that not mean that those who have made provision for their retirement will be penalised for their thrift? That is a sore point with pensioners even now. Those who have saved certainly do not like to see those who have not saved being treated as well as, if not better than they are, at the taxpayers's expense.
We must be careful what promises we make to pensioners. They know that policies have to be paid for, and will want to know the cost—as we have found out tonight the cost of the proposals of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—and whether it can be afforded. More than anything, pensioners want certainty.
As the Prime Minister's amendment says, pensioners' living standards have risen. Not only have their average incomes risen by 51 per cent. in real terms since 1979, but extra help has been given through improvements in income-related benefits. Pensioners now own more household goods than when Labour left office. For example, 78 per cent. of pensioner households now have


central heating, compared with 46 per cent. in 1979. In 1979, 57 per cent. of pensioner households had a telephone, that all-important instrument for the elderly; in 1991, the proportion had risen to 93 per cent. That kind of thing can make all the difference in the world to pensioner families.
In my view there has been steady progress, and I am sure that it will continue while the Government remain in office. The great danger is that there may be a change of economic circumstances or—God forbid—political circumstances, which could affect pensioners' prospects very adversely. Whether we sit on the Front Benches or the Back Benches, we must see to it that that political change does not happen. If we are honest with the pensioners they will help to ensure our victory.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What a pleasure it is to follow a genuine Welsh pensioner—the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—and how we look forward to his retirement. He may go into a nursing home eventually, although I am sure that if he does we shall all visit him as it will probably be the one just down the Corridor, which is so handily placed for us.
In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having achieved pensioner status, I should like to correct him on one point. The decline in the number of people of working age relative to the number of pensioners is not nearly so dramatic as he suggested. Over the next 30 years it will be very modest—almost within the margins of statistical error. In Wales the figure will fall from 3 to 2.8, and in England from 3.3 to 3.2. Even the Minister, in his opening speech, confirmed that the big differential will occur only after the year 2021, when the people born in the baby boom after the second world war reach retirement age. That is the only difference between the parties on matters of fact, although there are many differences on matters of policy.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on choosing the subject for the debate, which is a matter of great importance to all of us in Wales.

Mr. Sweeney: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, due to the shortage of time.
The founder of national insurance in this country, Lloyd George, was from Wales, as was the founder of the national health service, Nye Bevan. Matters of health and social care, pensions and provision for retirement were raised in the early years of this century by one of the great Welsh politicians, Lloyd George.
We are well aware that Wales will have two additional Members of Parliament following the next election, and the number of Members from Wales will be rising from 38 to 40. This is due not to a rise in the numbers of people of working age in Wales, but to an expansion in the pensioner population. The additional Members of Parliament are being provided in the counties of Dyfed and Clwyd, not in the industrial areas or in the capital city of Cardiff. The additional Members will be in those areas which are most attractive to people of retirement age who are moving to Wales in large numbers and surviving in

Wales in greater numbers. As a result, Wales will get those two additional Members. That is pensioner power defined in a practical way for us as politicians.
I want to concentrate on a matter which is of huge importance to Wales and on which the Minister touched in his opening speech. Many pensioners in Wales are developing a fear of losing their homes in their old age because the British Government are acting as a state repossession agency and are seen as more evil than many of the worst banks and building societies which have been involved in the repossession scandal of the past few years. The moral persuasion with which the Government could lean on those banks and building societies to reduce the pressure to repossess would be much greater if they themselves were not engaged in mass repossession through the social security system.

Mr. Richards: rose—

Mr. Morgan: The Minister will have an opportunity to speak in about half an hour.

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morgan: Very briefly.

Mr. Richards: It is not clear at this point whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for or against the motion.

Mr. Morgan: That is a singularly pointless intervention which is unworthy of any reply whatsoever and is a total waste of parliamentary time.
Is the Minister in favour of any amendment to the capital disregard rules, as has been speculated on? That is what most pensioners in Wales want to know, but the Minister did not answer that point. I understand the parliamentary convention that prevented him from doing so, but I want to tell him why that matter is such a burning issue with pensioners in Wales.
The Government have a totemic faith in the virtues of home ownership, but they did not need to tell us in Wales about that—we had that feeling about home ownership long before Lady Thatcher started talking about it. The present Prime Minister has talked about wealth cascading down through the generations, but it is people's fear and anxiety about the possible repossession of their homes when they become elderly and have to go into community care rather than wealth that is cascading down through the generations in Wales.
What do the Government intend to do to reduce the problem that they have created through the way in which they introduced the provisions relating to nursing and residential care homes, which have ballooned in number in this country over the past few years? The measures mean that £8,000 is the maximum capital that a resident of such a home is allowed to have.
I spoke this morning to Mrs. Marjorie Williams, whose mother is in an old people's home in Cardiff, having gone into full-time care in December 1992. As she had worked until she was 65 and her husband—who had been a miner in the valleys—had a miner's pension, she had some capital saved. Having run down that capital until it reached £3,000 in July this year, the Department of Social Security then told Mrs. Williams that it was time to put her mother's house on the market. That has now been done, and the house has been on the market for the past


three months because Mrs. Williams' mother's savings had dropped to the £3,000 that people are allowed to keep to cover their funeral expenses.
My constituent said that if the house was sold it might fetch between £22,000 and £25,000—the typical price for a miner's terraced house. Her mother would then have to pay back the income support that she has been receiving to cover nursing home costs between July this year and whenever the house is sold. I suppose that the money thus raised will cover the next two and a half years or so: with nursing home fees at £300 to £400 per week, £25,000 does not go very far.
What really brought the problem home to me was when my constituent told me that her mother still thought that she was in a national health service and free health care system. My constituent did not dare tell her mother that she was in a private nursing home for which she had to pay or that the house was on the market because the belief that one day she would go back to her own home had kept the old lady going while she was in nursing care. That is the tragedy of it.
We live in a society in which daughters have to protect their elderly mothers in nursing homes from the knowledge, first, that they are in private nursing homes and, secondly, that their house is having to be sold to pay for the care. Elderly people who have scrimped and saved to build up their savings and pay for their house with a mortgage over 20 to 25 years, having paid for their house through the building society, then find that the Government take it off them in a mere three or four years. Rather than wealth cascading through the generations, it is being taken away from people.
My constituent said that her mother would be very upset if she knew that her house was on the market. That made me think what an odd society we lived in. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he wants to see wealth cascading through the generations. The Government are obsessed with trumpeting the virtues of home ownership with almost religious fervour. They have to resolve the problem. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us too many details tonight as the issue may come up in the Budget, but it sounds as though an almighty battle is going on between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
One scheme that is proposed is for nursing care costs—£100 out of the typical £400 fee—to be met by the state, but for residents to meet the accommodation costs. In that case, people would still have to sell their houses, but the money might last for five years in the nursing home rather than two and a half. Alternatively, the £8,000 capital disregard may be doubled to £16,000 or trebled to £24,000. Something must be done to solve the problem. Either the Government must stop pushing out propaganda about wealth cascading through the generations or they must solve the problem that anxiety and fear instead of wealth are cascading through the generations.
The pensioners of Wales find that the Government's propaganda is contradicted by their daily experience when they require permanent, long-term care in a nursing or residential home. Chronic care is in chronic crisis. The Government are acting as repossessors. That is destroying the belief in home ownership that people in Wales always had. It makes people feel that when they buy a house they are probably not buying something permanent. They can keep the house only if they are lucky enough not to

require long-term community care. That puts the frail elderly into a state of acute anxiety which makes their illness even worse.
The Minister said that many of us felt that we owed a debt of gratitude to all the elderly people who sacrificed so much during the second world war to keep Europe, the world and certainly Britain free from fascism, Nazism, and so on. That touches a raw nerve with many pensioners in Wales, who look at the level of pension enjoyed by people in Germany now and wonder who really won the war and who won the peace. They do not think that they are getting a square deal.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: May I first draw the attention of the House to the sparse attendance on the Opposition Benches today. To be fair, the Liberal attendance is 100 per cent., and the Plaid Cymru attendance is fairly substantial. Labour attendance is poor for such an important debate, on an issue about which the Labour party is fond of weeping crocodile tears.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke with sincerity, but unfortunately he spoke as a member of a party that is never likely to gain power, and his wish list could therefore be extremely long. He wanted free or reduced rate travel, free television licences, and free eye testing and dental treatment for pensioners. Surely it is better to ensure that they have a decent pension and the freedom to decide how to spend their money, like the rest of us.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) rubbished the Government's claim that demographic changes will lead to a large increase in the number of pensioners next century. All the evidence points in that direction, and it is totally unrealistic for any Government to bury their head in the sand and fail to acknowledge that reality.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred to value added tax on fuel, and was supported by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who referred to the warm home campaign. The Government have been to the fore on that issue, in making grants for insulation available to all pensioners. I did not hear Opposition Members giving the Government credit for that.
It was suggested that we should introduce zero rating for insulation materials—on the face of it, an appealing idea. The difficulty is that it would certainly be hard to define. Some items would be included, and others unfairly excluded. On the whole, I believe that we should, as far as possible, have a standard rate of VAT, when it is applied at all, and that the minimum number of items should be exempt.
The Government approach has been to increase state pensions in line with prices and to encourage private pensions. Opposition Members have not given the Government's successes due credit during the debate. It is fair to say that about 80 per cent. of pensioners will now have some form of income over and above the state pension. Surely that is a marvellous achievement. It has enabled the Government to give selective help to those pensioners who need it most. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the average pensioner is 51 per cent. better off than when the Conservatives came to power.
I shall mention a few statistics on the ownership of goods to illustrate the way in which pensioners have become better off under the Conservatives. In 1979, only


57 per cent. of pensioner households had a telephone. Now, the figure is 93 per cent. In 1979, only 46 per cent. had central heating; now, it is 78 per cent. In 1979, 88 per cent. of pensioner households had a refrigerator; now, it is 99 per cent. Those are impressive statistics.
The Conservatives believe in giving priority to those who need it most. We believe that means tests are appropriate where necessary. It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition standing on his head on this issue when he said at the Labour party conference, first, that he opposed means testing, but at the same time that he would ensure that everyone had a basic minimum pension.
The importance of private pensions lies not only in the fact that they encourage people to provide for themselves, which is surely a good thing, but also in the fact that they stimulate industry, in that pension funds are able to invest heavily, and have made a major contribution to growth in the economy.
The average occupational pension is well over £70 a week, and, for those who are retiring now, it is around £95 per week. That shows the success of the introduction of such pensions.
I shall deal briefly with one of my favourite subjects—Europe. A study commissioned by the Department of Social Security, published in March 1993, considered various countries in the European Union. It is interesting that, in seven out of nine cases, the United Kingdom came ahead of Germany when purchasing power parity is taken into account. Does that not show that the Opposition are whipping up false concerns by constantly arguing that pensioners in Europe are better off than our pensioners?
I firmly oppose the motion, and support the amendment.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I believe that being a pensioner in Wales should not be viewed as a negative state. People's retirements should be filled with leisure and enjoyment and truly become their golden years. Those golden years should be filled with opportunities to enjoy more leisure time, and ways in which to enjoy more interesting and independent lives.
Unfortunately, pensioners in Wales face a bleak future. Their golden years have been transformed from a comfortable retirement to a basic struggle to make ends meet. More than half a million pensioners in Wales have had their dreams of comfortable retirement squashed. They are forced to regard living with their basic needs met as an unattainable dream. Talk of private pensions rings hollow to them. Some are prevented from receiving state benefits because they have small, inadequate works pensions.
Pensioners want to have their fundamental requirements met—basic items such as health care, decent living conditions, and enough money to afford heating and a decent diet. Under the Government, those needs are not being met. Pensioners find themselves freezing in fuel poverty, unable to afford to heat their homes. Their low incomes, coupled with poor housing and inefficient heating systems, make the elderly prime candidates for hypothermia.
As has been mentioned, mortality rates among the elderly sky-rocket each and every winter, as hypothermia claims more and more elderly pensioners. Over 8,000 deaths can be attributed to every degree by which the winter temperature drops below average. That situation is not helped by increases in VAT on fuel.
Under the Tory Government, pensioners are often forced into housing that is unfit for human habitation or in a state of serious disrepair. Elderly pensioners make up over two thirds of those eligible for grants for living in unfit houses—and the grants are not forthcoming. In Wales, more than 29,000 pensioners live in unfit homes, and almost 11,000 live in houses that either lack—or have shared—basic facilities such as showers, baths and toilets. The Conservative Government have failed to deal with those dire problems, which are punishing the elderly.
Old age is not a disease, but pensioners face health problems without much support. The Tories have designed a health care system that is unresponsive to the needs of pensioners, even though one in 10 will suffer from dementia and a shocking 25 per cent. will suffer fractures as a result of osteoporosis. The Tory Government have done little to ensure that care remains adequate.
The call for health care and a decent standard of living is not a call for frivolous luxuries, but a plaintive plea for the basic necessities of life. Under the Government, the dream of pensioners' golden years still exists, but it is not a dream of a fulfilling, productive, fruitful and happy life: it is of decent housing, health care and attempting to stay warm rather than the continuing nightmare of making ends meet.
The Government will ask what can be done. Labour's last manifesto included a modest but costed promise to increase pensions by £8 for a couple and £5 for a single pensioner. Not much, perhaps, but it was a promise. A Labour Government would help the plight of pensioners in other ways, not only with money. We would introduce measures to help restore the NHS, reduce the fear of crime and improve housing.
Finally, although I congratulate the Welsh National party on choosing this important subject, the pensioners of Wales should realise that that party cannot do anything for them; it cannot deliver. Only the Labour party can replace the Tory Government and start to put right the wrongs suffered by our pensioners in Wales.

Mr. Don Touhig: The amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and others is an affront to pensioners everywhere. With the smug complacency that we have come to expect of the Tory party, it seeks to gloss over the real plight of pensioners in Wales—pensioners who, for the past dozen years, have watched the value of their pensions fall, their savings dwindle, and the cost of just staying alive increase all the time. People who have worked all their lives are struggling to live a reasonable life, confronted as they are by a Government who, when they find it difficult to make ends meet, simply say that these people should have provided better for themselves when they were working.
The Minister talked about disposable income, a matter on which the Government can speak with some authority. They put VAT on fuel and helped to dispose of a lot more income belonging to pensioners and others than they would otherwise have spent.
The Prime Minister's amendment invites the House to applaud the Government for providing
a solid basis for income in retirement".
At best, I conclude that those who drafted that are out of touch; at worst it is a cynical display of contempt for the elderly. The amendment is insensitive to the plight of 500,000 people in Wales who are of pensionable age. I regularly see elderly people at my surgery. They are discovering that, far from old age being a time when they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their lives' labours, they face a desperate plight.
One pensioner who came to my surgery had a problem paying for his wife's funeral. The benefits system was unable and unwilling to help. He was a former service man; I pay tribute to the organisations for former service men who came to his rescue and paid the undertaker's bill—while the country he served in the war abandoned him to his plight.
A group of pensioner constituents of mine live in bungalows on a mountain at Markham, in the north of my constituency. They are desperately trying to persuade their landlord, Islwyn borough council, to change their central heating system from electricity to gas, because they cannot afford to keep warm. According to the Swalec report, the average tenant in those bungalows pays £500 a year, or £10 a week, for heating. To achieve that average, some tenants must be paying £244 and others £753. I have seen tenants' bills of £250 a quarter, or £20 a week.
Much of the housing stock in Wales is pre-war and lacking in basic amenities. Councils such as mine have done well to pay for housing improvements, but such funding in no way matches the need, and it will take a great many years to improve the housing stock.
Many houses in my area were built by the National Coal Board on the exposed sides of valleys. They catch the worst of the weather, and many of them are occupied by an aging population. That fact should be recognised, as should the needs of the elderly people who live in some of the poorest accommodation in Wales.
Life under the Tories is difficult for many pensioners, and it is very far from the description in the amendment. The problem of providing for old age will not go away or diminish. In my constituency, 15 per cent. of the population are over 65. Figures published in the Islwyn health plan last year forecast that that number will increase to half the population by the year 2026. By the year 2006, just over 10 years away, the proportion of people in my constituency over the age of 75 will be the highest in Gwent.
The Government should be preparing schemes and services to cater for this growing population of elderly people. The health plan, however, revealed a terrible lack of provision. We have no hospital in Islwyn. In 1993–94, 33,000 visits were made by my constituents, many of them pensioners, to the nearest general hospital, 15 miles away at Newport. We desperately need a neighbourhood health unit.
What about care in the community, as many of my constituents ask? To be frank, the resources available in no way match the expectations raised by the Government when they introduced it. Many old people who looked to care in the community to provide some insurance so that they could continue to live independently in their own homes have been sadly disillusioned.
Without the support of local authority services such as meals on wheels, and the various voluntary organisations, many old people would have no lifeline to the outside world whatever. I paint a grim picture, because it is grim for so many people living in Wales at the present time. Many elderly people live on the edge of poverty, in a society that appears to think that old age is a crime. The old folk of Wales, as the Government will learn, are made of sterner stuff. They will fight back. They will not be denied their chance to enjoy their autumn years in dignity and contentment.
The message to the Government is clear: "Ignore the pensioners at your peril." Let us have no more of the "Alice in Wonderland" approach that we see in the Government's amendment. If the Conservative party is not prepared to do something about the plight of the pensioners, they should move over for a Government who will.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mô): This has been a very interesting debate and I would like to thank hon. Members, from both sides of the House, who have made such a valuable contribution to it. I thank all those who have made cogent points in the debate, and hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take a number of them on board.
I have to say, however, that the Minister and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) are the only people tonight who have given the Government a clean bill of health. Even the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), in his usual way, gave some credit to the Government, but he said that there was a little bit more that they could do. He acknowledged two quite serious issues that affect pensioners in Wales: the concerns on community care, which I hope the Government will address, and the capital threshold for contributions towards residential care. We heard from the Minister that that is being considered elsewhere in the Government, and I hope that, when an announcement is eventually made, pensioners will benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made a thoughtful and passionate speech, and he will certainly go down tonight as being on the side of the pensioners, as the pensioners' friend.
The Minister's response was extremely complacent. He seemed to give the impression that all pensioners in Wales were happy with the Government's policies. It is strange, then, that 75 per cent. of the people of Wales do not vote for the Conservatives. It seems to me that they know where their political priorities lie. I believe that the support for the Conservative party in Wales will fall dramatically at the next election, partly as a result of its policies towards pensioners.
I found it most surprising that the Minister chided my hon. Friend for pandering to the wishes of people who had a long wish list. He said that the Government were not in the business of making promises that they could not keep. What has happened during the past three years? Promise after promise, not only to the pensioners but the people of Wales, has been broken. Why are the Government now 30 percentage points behind in the opinion polls? Is it because they have kept their promises, or is it because they have broken them? The result will be quite clear at the next election. The promises made have simply not been kept.
The Minister also chided my hon. Friend for failing to understand the niceties of one or two of the points made by Conservative Members. He fell into the same trap, because a very good point was put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about the differential between those on state pensions and those on private pensions. The gap between the two has risen. The Minister made the point that people on state pensions are worse off than people with private pensions and occupational pensions, but our point is that the gap between the two has also risen. The inequality has also risen. Those at the bottom of the pile are much worse off in relation to others than they have been at any time since the second world war.
The Minister said that the Government have responded to the concerns of those who have high fuel bills, particularly the elderly and the disabled, and that much help has been given to meet their needs, but he failed to point out that assistance towards heating costs was made on the basis of average bills. We must accept that the elderly and the disabled have higher than average bills and they have to pay more in order to keep warm during the winter months. The high mortality rate among people over 60 and, in particular, those over 80, is highlighted by the fact that many feel that they cannot afford the heating necessary to sustain them.
Apart from one or two points acknowledged by the Minister, particularly concerning the capital disregard, his response was extremely complacent. The Government have sought to create an image of the elderly as a group of people who have grown in wealth and independence under the Conservatives and who exercise an element of choice which they never had before. That is not the case in Wales.
There are three categories of pensioners. The top 20 per cent. is the category about which the Minister spoke. They are the people who can exercise choice, who had the wealth during their working lives to provide for their pensions. But 80 per cent. of pensioners in Wales have degrees of difficulty, some so extreme that they fall into the poverty trap.
In Wales, 40 per cent. of pensioners have capital assets in their home and some form of occupational pension. For the vast majority, that occupational pension is not particularly large, but it is too large for them to have any state benefits in addition to their pension. Therefore, they lose the benefits that others may have and they are in danger of losing their homes if they want to go into residential or nursing homes.
The right hon. Member for Conwy said that he was not receiving the same number of letters from pensioners as he was 20 years ago. I have not been in the House as long as he has, but I know that there are genuine and deep-seated concerns among the pensioners of Wales about the loss of their homes to pay for residential care. Their homes have been taken away from them and many pensioners in Wales believe that that is wrong. It is morally wrong. People should not be in danger of losing their homes if they have to look after themselves in residential and nursing homes. That is a moral issue which the Government must address. If that requires more resources, the Government must meet the challenge head on.
The other group of pensioners, the bottom 40 per cent., comprises those who live on state benefits. I fully support the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Pensioners in that group are found particularly in rural areas, where they have special concerns in addition to those of pensioners living in urban areas. The value of their pensions has dropped dramatically in recent years. The inequalities that are built into the system for those who have not been able, through force of circumstance, to have private pensions places them in a particularly bad position.
The Government must not say simply say that all those with private pensions are better off. Of course they are better off. But what about the bottom 40 per cent? What help will the Government give them? Shall we allow them to fall into greater inequality, or will the Government acknowledge that they have a moral responsibility to those people? Does one say that because an elderly pensioner on state benefit has not had the opportunity to obtain a private pension he should fall further behind? The value of the state pension is constantly eroded. The Government have failed to address people's concerns in tonight's debate.
We must also accept a few salient points about the position of pensioners in society in Wales. First, elderly people are over-represented among low-income groups. Secondly, dependence on state benefits in that category has increased in recent years. Income falls with increasing age; women—an issue that the Government have not addressed—and especially the large number of single elderly women, are more likely to be living on lower and dwindling incomes. The value of occupational pensions often dwindles over the years, although in the first few years it may constitute an important addition to recipients' incomes.
There are growing inequalities among the Welsh pensioner population owing to a real terms shortfall in the value of their pensions. There are growing inequalities in incomes, and—as others have pointed out—in the provision of housing. Because pensioners often live in houses that are not properly insulated, their running costs are substantially higher than those of others, and because they tend to live in large properties, often alone, their heating bills are high.
There is also inequality in the provision of care. One of the reasons why pensioners in Wales are now in difficulties is the blurring of the distinction between social and health care. The Government know full well that the more pensioners and disabled people can be transferred to the social sector, the more the NHS will be excused from paying the bill. The Minister said that more people were being treated in hospitals, and that is true; but, as every hon. Member knows, many elderly pensioners are being sent home far too early. Pensioners are having to return to hospital because the care is not available at home.
Health care that was provided in elderly people's homes by district nurses free of charge, on the NHS, must now be provided by home carers. Who is paying the bill? Pensioners, who cannot afford it. The Government are transferring responsibility from the state to pensioners who cannot afford it in the first place. Is that the priority that the Government are giving to dealing with the elderly population in Wales? Those are certainly not the principles of Lloyd George or Aneurin Bevan; they are the principles of the Conservative right, which believes that tax cuts are more important than the health of pensioners in Wales.
When community care was introduced, we were told that it created real choices for people: it meant that they could live in their own homes for much longer. The problem was that the Government underestimated, considerably, the number of people who would decide to go for that costly option. A clear choice is now unavoidable: the Government must either recognise the under-provision and provide more from their own resources or make pensioners pay more. What will happen? Pensioners will pay more. Local authority budgets cannot sustain the demand, and unless the Government are prepared to recognise that, the elderly population will pay more and more for social care.
If the Government have any credibility left in this regard, they must accept the real concerns of pensioners. They must accept that the people of Wales, including pensioners, believe that they have failed the test. At least all Opposition parties have had an opportunity to present their point of view tonight; we await the Minister's response with interest.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Roderick Richards): It is my privilege to respond to a debate on such an important issue.
Conservative Members subscribe to the maxim "Age commands respect", and we respect the elderly people of this country—not least because, some 50 years ago, their generation secured freedom for us and the rest of the western world. They bequeathed to us what we have today. We respect them also for their independence. They were brought up to believe in the work ethic, to stand on their own two feet and to help their fellow man. They are a generation who are entitled to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I am afraid that all they have heard from the Opposition parties today are lies, damned lies and statistics—politicians on the Opposition Benches promising the earth without ever acknowledging that such promises would cost the earth and so cannot be fulfilled. It is a cruel deceit on a grand scale to make claims and promises that not only cannot be delivered but politicians know they will never be in a position to attempt to deliver. Opposition Members have today shown their total disrespect for the pensioners of Wales.
Do Opposition Members seriously believe that our parents' generation will be fooled by a list of empty promises? They forget that this is the generation that was tricked by the Attlee Government in 1945 into believing that socialism would deliver prosperity. It did not and it never will, so they will not be tricked today by Plaid Cymru or by new Labour: Conservative Members will see to that.
The motion that we are debating, and I notice that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is already shaking his head—I am fascinated—[Interruption.] He failed to say, when speaking in a debate on a specific motion, whether he was for or against the motion. Now is he for or against it?

Mr. Morgan: Given a choice between the motion and the Government's rebuttal of it, the motion is far superior to that rebuttal. What worries me about the Government's rebuttal is that the Minister's Department does not appear to have contributed to it. The Plaid Cymru motion

contains not only references to pension issues, properly the province of the Department of Social Security, but matters related to long-term nursing care and social care, which are his responsibility. In the rebuttal, however, there is no mention of those aspects. I do not even know why he is winding up for the Government.

Mr. Richards: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for signifying on behalf of his party that he is for the motion and, therefore, that he is for the spending implications that go with it, which amount to some tens of billions of pounds. Conservative Members will return to that issue time and again.
The motion suggests that pensioners' interests are marginalized—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again?

Mr. Morgan ind: indicated dissent.

Mr. Richards: Those interests would be marginalised as an independent Wales—which the nationalists advocate—would be marginalised under the policies of Opposition Members, but not under this Government. We instead have shown our commitment to pensioners through real measures of real benefit, but it is not only about pensioners' income, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Social Security made clear.
We want older people to continue to live full lives and to play as full a part as possible in society and we have created a climate in which they can do so, with a high-quality national health service and with the emphasis we have placed on community care and meeting housing needs. Over the years, my predecessors and I have met representatives of pensioners in Wales many times. We respect their perspective and views. We have sought actively to find out about their concerns and worries and our policies reflect that.
I was intrigued that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was interested in pensioners. I carried out some research into the extent of that interest and I discovered that, in the past 12 months, the hon. Gentleman's interest in pensioners extended to one entire parliamentary question.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to my constituent, Mr. Alan Roberts, without having told me that he would do so, so I should like to take up one or two of the points that he raised. As the hon. Gentleman already knows, I correspond and speak with Mr. Roberts frequently and regularly.
The national health service and local authorities have played different but complementary roles since the inception of the welfare state. To address the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised, the guidance that we issued in February reiterates the responsibilities of the NHS to provide continuing health care for those who need it, whether in hospital, in nursing homes, in residential care homes or in their own homes. The guidance does not signify a change in policy; it offers a practical national framework which clarifies the long-standing responsibilities of the NHS. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who is not paying attention, that the guidance has been welcomed by a range of key interests in the health service, in local authorities and in the voluntary sector.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of concessionary fares. I am trying to address issues that he has raised and he does not seem to be paying attention; I wish that he


would. All local authorities in Wales have schemes for pensioners, ranging from fare reductions of one third or half to free travel. Some authorities also have schemes for cheap travel on the railway as an alternative to concessionary bus fares. Local authorities are in the best position to decide what schemes are appropriate for their area.
In addition to all the other super high spending proposals that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech, he referred to free television licences for pensioners. That particular scheme would cost £700 million a year across the United Kingdom. That is in addition to the £22 billion linking state pensions with average earnings to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), referred earlier. If we aggregate that as we go along, the sum approaches £23 billion. The Labour party is in favour of that and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West says that he now supports the motion.
There is one issue which the hon. Gentleman raised that I wish he had not raised, but I cannot allow it to pass. He spoke about pensioners having given everything to defeat fascism. I need hardly remind him that, when Britain was preparing for war, the founding fathers of his party attacked and burnt a RAF station on the Lleyn peninsula, so the hon. Gentleman need not pretend that the history of his party, which he and his supporters revere, is as clean, clear or supportive of British policies in the second world war as he would wish it to be.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way, or is he frightened to give way?

Mr. Richards: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman has had all the time I intend to give him and he has had his say.
I now wish to refer the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to his party's so-called white paper on health, which was published in December. I understand that there was a public meeting on 10 January that health service professionals were invited to attend. I would love to know from the hon. Gentleman how many health service professionals, if any, attended.
The white paper referred to an awful lot of high-spending proposals, which, naturally, the hon. Gentleman, or the person who wrote it, did not cost. Fortunately, I was in a position to assess those costs, so I should like to run through one or two of the proposals that the hon. Gentleman has published.
The hon. Gentleman's white paper argued that there should be "wholly free" nursing home care. My estimate is that that would cost about £140 million a year. That white paper proposed that GP fundholding should be abolished and that all GPs and dentists should be salaried—the hon. Gentleman repeated that pledge in his speech. Apart from driving GPs and dentists out of the NHS, and probably out of the country, the cost of acquiring those practices would be about £100 million. That white paper also advocated the abolition of prescription charges, even though about 90 per cent. of people in many parts of Wales are exempt from them. That proposal would cost another £17 million, so that is another quarter of a billion pounds to add to the aggregate.
That white paper also contained some other multi-million pound proposals which were totally uncosted, and which were even beyond my capability to cost. It proposed that there should be a new tier of health authorities to come beneath an elected Welsh Parliament, a health Ministry, principal health and social care authorities, health and social care authorities and, finally, hospital boards. Those five tiers of bureaucracy would lean down on our NHS and cost the earth—I cannot possibly assess how much.
The hon. Gentleman's white paper also suggested that junior doctors should work eight hours a day, 48 hours a week, which is an expensive item. It also called for the provision of extended community hospitals. I should love to cost that one, but, unfortunately, that white paper does not say how many extended community hospitals there should be.
The hon. Gentleman's white paper also suggested that community health specialists should receive new priority and increased funding—again, that was uncosted. The increase in the provision of services as a result of overlaps between health and social policy and health and housing policy also has serious cost implications to which the nationalists did not refer at all.
The joke of it all is that the proposals would be funded from 9 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Wales. The hon. Gentleman and his party have suggested that all those extra funding demands would be met by that 9 per cent. of GDP—they cannot even do their arithmetic. We already spend 9 per cent. of Welsh GDP on the health services and an extra 1 per cent. on social services. None of the wacky schemes in the white paper could possibly be funded out of that 9 per cent. of GDP. The required percentage of GDP would be even higher than that, so to the £23 billion I guess we could probably add between another £500 million and £700 million. It does not matter any longer because it is all the same as cricket scores, is it not?
Opposition Members continually call for an independent Wales. Today, for a change, they called for a better deal for Welsh pensioners. But today has given us an insight into what life in Wales, with its own Parliament, would be like if Plaid Cymru had its way. It would be a case of spending as though there were no tomorrow—the taxes to pay for that would guarantee no tomorrow. There would be bureaucrats from Benllech to Bridgend. There would be interference in people's lives: restriction of choice and curtailment of individual freedoms.
We would have an economy so burdened with taxation, regulation and government that business men would be queuing up to cross the Severn bridge—and, going that way, it would be free. Wales would witness a brain drain on an unprecedented scale. All this mayhem through the medium of Welsh—llongyfarchiadau. But for the pensioners of Wales, there would be no escape. For them, Plaid Cymru's solution would be final.
What of new Labour? That one-man band, without the—

Mr. Llwyd: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 25,Noes 129.

Division No. 223]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashton.Joe
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McCrea, The Reverend William


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Maddock, Diana


Cunningham, Roseanna
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Rendel, David


Dafie, Cynog
Simpson, Alan


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Harvey, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Johnston, Sir Russell



Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mrs. Margaret Ewing.


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fry, Sir Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Gallie, Phil


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gillan, Cheryl


Baldry, Tony
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bates, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, Rt Hon William


Booth, Hartley
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Boswell, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Heald, Oliver


Bowis, John
Hendry, Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Hicks, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Conway, Derek
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Cran, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Day, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Devlin, Tim
Legg, Barry


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maitland, Lady Olga





Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sweeney, Walter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pickles, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Willetts, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skeet Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Speed, Sir Keith



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Richard Ottaway.


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the rise in pensioners' living standards throughout Wales and the rest of the UK since this Government took office; applauds the fact that pensioners' average incomes have increased by 51 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared with only 5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979; welcomes the extra help, amounting to —1.2 billion per year above the rate of inflation since 1988, awarded through improvements to income-related benefits for pensioners; believes it is far better to target benefit resources on those in the most need; applauds the fact that this Government has provided a solid basis for income in retirement by maintaining its pledge to increase basic retirement pension at least in line with prices; and welcomes wholeheartedly the wider and substantial benefits delivered to pensioners by this Government's policies, particularly the control of inflation.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Question agreed to.

Classic FM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate the debate, and especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage for being in his place at this late hour. I seek to draw to the attention of the House the sword of Damocles, indeed the death threat, hanging over one of the success stories of the century.
A recent survey showed that Classic FM is the radio station most listened to by Members of Parliament. Perhaps far more importantly, it is the most listened to classical radio station in Europe. The Broadcasting Act 1990 allowed the birth of Classic FM, our first national commercial radio station. Such a station would not be viable, said the critics, if it did not succumb to the normal diet of pop music and prattle. The more optimistic gave the planned classical music station two years at most.
That was based on a belief that, as a nation of philistines, we would not be able to recognise excellence either in musical or in broadcasting terms. Instead, we have gained the success story of independent national radio. In three short years Classic FM has built up more than twice as many listeners as its nearest rival, Radio 3. Nearly 5 million listeners a week, 25 per cent. of whom are under 35, tune in to enjoy "the world's most beautiful music", in addition to news bulletins, travel, cookery, sport and financial programmes. Even Radio 4 was shaken to its core when its "Gardeners' Question Time" team crossed the Floor of the ether and joined Classic FM's "Gardening Forum".
Before I entered the House I co-founded a company offering a design, installation, manufacturing and investment service to radio stations in the far east, eastern and southern Africa, the Americas, the Soviet Union and the European Union. I therefore have a little practical experience of the broadcast sector, and an interest in seeing broadcasting—an industry in which British technology and expertise are the envy of the world—succeed.
Classic FM has occasionally been dismissed as lightweight or frivolous—a constant diet of "The Four Seasons" and the "1812 Overture", pundits have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I level no criticism at either Vivaldi or Tchaikovsky—

Mr. John Whittingdale: I am sure they will be relieved.

Mr. Fabricant: I am glad to know that I have support on the Government Benches. Every listener can now find something in the 23,000 tracks on the play list.
The Lucerne music festival—long considered to be one of the greatest of modern times—was brought to listeners in the United Kingdom for the first time this year by Classic. This success has been recognised, with Classic winning many awards since 1992, including the Sony national radio station of the year award. However, a good radio station should not be concerned merely with the music on the airwaves.
Committed to music education, Classic endeavours to encourage young musicians by providing a platform to reflect their lives, music and future careers. This commitment is backed by a charitable trust which raises funds for music education and child-related charities aimed at stimulating an appreciation of classical music.
All the nation's orchestras have links with Classic FM, with the Royal Philharmonic receiving substantial direct and indirect support. Broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Classic FM has proved through its success that we are not quite the nation of philistines which some would have us believe and, more importantly, that classical music has much to offer any listener, regardless of his knowledge of the subject—something, I am afraid, that Radio 3 has been unable to achieve to date.
The right hon.Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is not in his place, has said that he fears that Radio 3 is now trying to imitate Classic FM. Imagine for a moment if it were to be the other way round. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Classic FM would be the success it is if it were organised by the BBC? I think not. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I hope that Radio 3's shift in policy will mean that our public sector classical station now starts to provide a service that attracts listeners, as well as attracting public funds. I commend Radio 3's shift in programming. Paul Gambaccini has a knowledge of classical music to be revered, and not reviled, and the controller of Radio 3 showed insight in recruiting him. He has my congratulations.
Building on its success, Classic FM has started to expand. A glossy magazine based on the Classic format now sells more than 40,000 copies a month. The Government—rightly in my view—have encouraged broadcasters to go out and export what they produce, proving once again that we have the best broadcasting industry in the world.
Classic FM has responded to the Government's campaign with a pan-European network. There is already a sister station in the Netherlands and a licence for Stockholm, and the first ever national independent station in Finland has finally been agreed. Classic is now taking the first steps towards the American market by providing a consultancy and technology for a Classic FM franchise in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry and the British embassy in the United States.
Those Members who believe that quality and commercialism are often mutually exclusive might also be interested to learn that, while Classic FM is reliant on advertising revenue, it has a policy which allows no more than three advertisement breaks an hour. Those who may believe that my opening remarks until now have sounded like an advertisement for Classic FM may appreciate benefits such as that policy.
I gave credit to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which allowed Classic FM to develop in the first place. However, as I am sure the House is aware, the Act has been accused of creating more problems than it solved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—the former Secretary of State for National Heritage—stated:
In developing the Bill, a small group of Ministers pursued, in private, a range of proposals. They should have known that, the moment that the proposals saw the light of day, they would have to beat a retreat from many of the points that had seemed so clear cut in a small room but would not appear so in the clear light of day before wider consultation.


One of the flaws in the Bill was the arrangement that national independent radio licences should be awarded on an eight-year basis. No provision is made within the Act for renewal, and there is also no requirement that a bidder would have to offer a similar programme to the existing station. There is no emphasis on quality in the bidding criteria. That could result in Classic FM being replaced by another higher bidder, offering an entirely different style of music. Could Blur be the replacement for Beethoven? Is that what we want?
The position for radio is in stark contrast to the provision made for independent television licences. The Act reads:
A Channel Three licence shall continue in force for a period of ten years, and may be renewed on one or more occasions for a period of ten years, beginning with the date of renewal.
Despite the uncertainty, Classic FM is still thinking and planning ahead. The future of broadcasting is already cast to be an exciting time, with the introduction of digital broadcasting, which will enhance choice and technical quality for listeners and viewers and maintain Britain's reputation as a creative innovator and a technical leader.
The development of digital audio broadcasting will require co-operation between broadcasters, manufacturers and the Government, a process in which Classic is seeking to play a full role. Classic FM has welcomed the Government's proposals on digital terrestrial broadcasting and proposed, alongside NTL, an experimental DAB service for London, keeping Britain's technical standards at the high level which is envied by the rest of the world.
Establishing a digital network will, however, require substantial investment. Supporters of Classic have already invested more than £18 million, but attracting investment is made more difficult by the fact that Classic does not have a secure future at present. Seen from the perspective that Classic has only five years more air time guaranteed, investment in a digital service would result in a huge loss for the company. Classic must have a lifespan longer than this.
I do not seek privilege for Classic FM or any other station in its market in the future. I do, however, believe that the station should enjoy the same benefits of licence security as those operating Channel 3 television stations. There is no guarantee at present that a Classic-type licence will be advertised next time, and even if Classic is able to make a bid for a new licence, it will be up against new competition keen to build on the market that Classic has developed without any requirement to guarantee that quality in broadcasting will remain.
I am sure that many of my colleagues in the House were lobbied when Radio 4 long wave was threatened, and that was only one frequency of that popular station. Listeners become passionate about the stations that they listen to on a regular basis. The station, and the personalities that go with it, become a valuable part of people's day-to-day lives. I remind the House that Classic has built up more than 5 million listeners. Are we to tell them that their choice may disappear, to be replaced by yet another station devoted to the teen pop culture?
There can be no guarantees for Classic's future. However, if the changes that I have asked for tonight are implemented, the Radio Authority, and not the arbitrary wording of an Act, will be the judge of whether Classic FM continues broadcasting into the 21st century. The Radio Authority should be the arbiter of quality and

public service. This makes sense and it will be yet another incentive for Classic to maintain its quality threshold and be an innovator in the market that it serves.
The chief executive of Classic, John Spearman, has said:
I am sure that it was not the intention of Parliament to threaten the long term existence of Classic's success". 
I agree. I therefore look to my colleague, the Minister of State, for action—action that will ensure that Classic is able to compete in the world broadcasting industry on a secure platform equal to that which our television companies enjoy; action that will enable Classic FM to invest in the technology necessary for the 21st century, and action that will ensure that Classic FM will be able to continue to add to the enjoyment of millions of listeners in the United Kingdom and abroad.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing this debate. He is always extremely sharp in finding opportunities to express his views and effective in the way in which he does it. I congratulate him on the sincerity and passion with which he put a strong case. I join my hon. Friend in recognising and applauding the great success not merely of Classic FM but of the independent radio sector, which is one of this country's success stories. As a sector, independent radio is growing both in popularity and financial strength.
My hon. Friend mentioned the BBC. He may be interested to know that the audience research figures just published for the third quarter of 1995 show that the share of listening achieved by commercial radio was 2.3 per cent. ahead of that for the BBC. The Radio Authority's annual report agrees that commercial radio has now overtaken the BBC. Since the BBC had a head start of some 50 years, the independent radio sector has good reason indeed to be pleased with that performance in meeting the needs of listeners.
Listeners now have a greater range of choice available to them than ever and stations continue to proliferate. In this situation, and since listeners are not normally concerned about who owns a station as long as it provides what they want to hear, the Government have been able to simplify and liberalise the ownership regulations and we are committed to further liberalisation at the earliest legislative opportunity.
It should be remembered that there were no independent radio services in this country until 1973. At that point, the Government proposed introducing independent radio at both national and local level. It coincided, however, with a difficult period for the newspaper industry and the Government were persuaded that, as it would have been a direct competitor for advertising revenue, the introduction of independent national radio could have had unacceptable implications for the national press. It was, therefore, principally for that reason that independent radio came into being as a local service only.
Parliament debated the issue during the passage of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, which, in the event, permitted the establishment of a transmitter network for a national service, but did not yet allow such a service to


broadcast. Plans were, however, drawn up by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for the service to be speech-based, to compete with BBC Radio 4.
The Government's proposals for introducing independent national radio then featured in a 1987 consultative document, which suggested that it need not be limited to a single service, but ought to be capable of providing competition to the BBC in the areas of music, entertainment and sports coverage, as well as news and speech. On that basis, three networks were envisaged, and the ensuing Broadcasting Act 1990 provided for those to be introduced.
The 1990 Act requires the Radio Authority to secure a diversity of independent national radio services, of which
one is a service the greater part of which consists in the broadcasting of spoken material
and
another is a service which consists, wholly or mainly, in the broadcasting of music which, in the opinion of the Authority, is not pop".
The third service is undefined.
The sector is of considerable economic and cultural importance. It quickly adjusted to the changes brought about by the 1990 Act and has also carved out a new and more secure environment for itself through internal changes. Independent radio is the United Kingdom's fastest-growing advertising medium. I understand, for example, that the sector is aiming for a 6 per cent. share of total UK advertising by the turn of the century, which represents a challenging target and demonstrates the confidence of the industry in the future.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, digital technology will play an important part in that future. The Government welcome the potential that such technology offers. It will improve the quality, ease and reliability of reception, and could also increase the range of choice for listeners and, in the longer term, might release valuable spectrum.
The BBC introduced digital audio broadcasting services in September. I am sure that the independent sector will be pleased to see the publicly funded broadcaster leading the way, taking the initial risks and bearing the inaugural costs of that major venture. The BBC estimates expenditure of about £11 million for the first phase of development alone. That should bring digital audio broadcasting to 60 per cent. of the population within four years. I am sure, however, that independent radio will not want to lag too far behind in taking up that new opportunity, and I know that Classic FM is keen to play its part.
Within the independent sector, the national radio stations—Talk Radio UK, Virgin and, of course, the first one, Classic FM—continue to go from strength to strength. Classic FM came on air in September 1992 and proved very successful from the outset. It is now the UK's fifth most popular station, with some 4.8 million listeners.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, it has had considerable success overseas and has, I understand, further international ambitions.
I am well aware of the requests that we should take the opportunity of any legislation that might be proposed to alter the licensing procedures in the Broadcasting Act 1990. My hon. Friend has correctly pointed out that there is a difference between the radio and television licensing provisions and asked that incumbent operators should be given similar scope for licence renewal.
I understand the desire for parity between independent national radio services and the Channel 3 television companies, but the requirement for fresh competitive tender for the independent national radio licences was designed to keep services fresh and offer regular opportunities for new operators. It also recognised that national radio frequencies were at a premium. While the advent of digital audio broadcasting will allow for the provision of six independent national radio services as compared with the existing three, they will still be at a greater premium than their digital television counterparts.
The distinction between the arrangements for independent national radio and television licensing in the 1990 Act was drawn in recognition of the differences between the two media. Television stations, for instance, face considerably higher start-up costs to meet their more stringent licence conditions. Parliament considered that eight-year licences for radio stations offered sufficient scope for them to recoup their costs and to make a reasonable return on their investment. There was also the view that these arrangements would be more disruptive to viewers, if applied to television licensing arrangements, than to radio listeners.
Government policy is to provide regular opportunities for newcomers, to secure a proper return to the taxpayer for the use of a limited national resource and to encourage competition. At the same time, however, the Government recognise the need for those criteria to be balanced against acceptable levels of potential disruption for listeners. I can only assure the House and my hon. Friend that we are looking closely at these issues right now, but I cannot at this moment give any indication as to the outcome.
It is the nature of radio that safeguards its future. It has a unique appeal to the imagination. It has the ability to go anywhere with the consumer without intruding on their other activities, whether driving a car or relaxing at home. Research shows that listeners treat it as a friend. The loyalty with which listeners continue to respond to radio in the face of competing demands on everyone's time and attention demonstrates that radio has a solid future. The growth of commercial radio's audiences and revenue and the advantages which digital audio broadcasting offers signify that radio is not only secure but that radio is on the move.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.